Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNBARTON COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Dunbarton County Council.

To be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of recruiting for the Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserve.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): The new units of the T. & A.V.R., which require an establishment of about 10,500, started to recruit on 1st April, 1971. No firm strength figures for these units are yet available, but preliminary returns indicate that their volunteer strength at the end of the month, including applications being processed, was already about 3,000—that is to say, nearly one-third of their total requirement in one month's recruiting.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my hon. Friend for that very satis-

factory answer. May I take this opportunity to congratulate him on answering Questions on defence from the Despatch Box for the first time? How is the process proceeding of producing the equipment and uniform for these new units?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. There were a very few minor difficulties when recruiting started at the beginning of April. There were no difficulties of which I am aware over equipment and the issue of uniforms is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Crawshaw: Are there any plans to increase this ceiling of 10,000 in the near future? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, while it is important that we get more numbers, it is equally important that we maintain the high efficiency which has come about over the last years in the reserve forces?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Our general task is to achieve the target of 10,500. I accept the hon. Member's point about quality.

Mr. Marten: Has there been any advance in the proposition for country yeomanry regiments, whereby every county could provide a squadron to form three-county yeomanry regiments?

Mr. Johnson Smith: None of which I am aware.

Mr. Rankin: During a former period of greater activity, the Territorial Army possessed many halls which were of great use to them. Will any attempt be made to recover the use of those halls, or will some substitutes be found?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Where there is a difficulty, I will look into it. Some halls have been sold off and one has to bear in mind the cost of reacquiring them. But I will look into any difficulty.

Harrier

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of State for Defence what proposals he has for up rating the Harrier.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): An up-rated Pegasus engine is already in production. An even more powerful version will be available later this year.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful to know that we are beginning to uprate the Harrier. What is the position about sales to, for example, the Royal Navy and the Marines?

Mr. Gilmour: Sales have been made to the United States Marine Corps. Whether or not the Navy buys the aeroplane is, of course, under consideration. There is another Question down on this matter today.

Mr. Dalyell: Have we had the interim result of the Harrier tests from "Ark Royal"?

Mr. Gilmour: As I said, there is another Question on this almost immediately.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the recent evaluation of Harrier aircraft at sea.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Trials of the Harrier in H.M.S. "Ark Royal" started on 4th May and are still in progress.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was 30 years ago this week that the first jet-powered aircraft flew in this country and that many believe the Harrier to be as much of a breakthrough as that aircraft was, but that its full versatility will not be exploited until its marine potential is brought to good effect by the Royal Navy?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that anniversary. We shall be evaluating these trials, which are in progress, and be making a decision shortly afterwards.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for arranging a visit for me to the "Ark Royal" at short notice. Will the evaluation be available in the Library?

Mr. Gilmour: Almost certainly not.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of foreign navies have shown interest in this aircraft and that the chance of substantial export sales and earnings would be greatly improved if the Royal Navy would show confidence and place some firm orders?

Mr. Gilmour: We are, of course, fully aware of the export potential of this

aircraft. However, we must evaluate its operational capabilities to ensure that we get value for money by employing it at sea.

Mr. Warren: May I express the hope that these trials will be accelerated, it being nine years since the first of the Harrier derivatives started tests in the "Ark Royal"? This seems a long time for us to be waiting for a break-through to the export markets which we know are there.

Mr. Gilmour: We can hardly speed up the trials because they are already taking place. They will be completed on Saturday.

Royal Yacht "Britannia"

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the Royal Yacht "Britannia" since it was built, including current and capital costs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): About £8½ million since she entered service in 1954. This does not include the cost of construction which was a little over £2 million.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the age of the ship, is there any immediate prospect of building a new one? Why is no chance given on the party Whips for hon. Members to visit this ship of war?

Mr. Kirk: We have no plans for building a new one, and what goes on the party Whip is no concern of mine.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I think that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that hon. Members have been invited to take trips in the ship in the past, and that those who have gone have considered the money spent on her to have been very well spent.

Mr. Kirk: I can confirm both those things.

B.A.O.R. (Youth Service Facilities)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the youth service facilities available to British service personnel and their dependants in Germany.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): An official Youth Service controlled by the Commander-in-Chief B.A.O.R. has been in operation since 1st January, 1969. Four full-time youth service officers co-ordinate all activities under the guidance of a youth advisory committee. Funds are provided for works services, equipment, training and other expenses.

Mr. Watkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he satisfied that the facilities are being used to the maximum advantage and that their availability is sufficiently well known to the Service personnel and their dependants who are entitled to make use of them?

Lord Balniel: If the hon. Gentleman knows of any instance in which they are not well known, I will certainly look into the matter. However, my impression is that this service is well appreciated by the families of Service men, and many clubs have been formed in B.A.O.R. to assist children.

Mr. Normanton: Having recently returned from a tour of the Army and Air Force in Germany, may I, with respect, confirm the views expressed by my hon. Friend and add that the rôle played by the youth service in training youth leaders is greatly appreciated? Having regard to this, will my hon. Friend consider an extension of this service into other areas where the Services are concentrated, and particularly into those which stand in need of similar facilities?

Lord Balniel: I am glad for my hon. Friend's confirmation of the value of this service, under which youth leaders are trained. We are about to start a similar scheme in Cyprus, where one is working at present on a voluntary basis but with inadequate means.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many separate searches for arms have been carried out in the past six weeks to the latest convenient date; how many arms, how much ammunition and what quantity of explosives have been discovered; and how many arrests in connection with the unlawful possession thereof have been

effected by the Army in Northern Ireland.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: In the period from 1st April to 10th May there have been over 2,000 searches of buildings and land, as well as over 124,000 vehicle checks. In the period, 93 firearms, 7,000 assorted rounds of ammunition and a considerable quantity of explosives, detonators and fuses have been found. Eight arrests have been made by the Army as a result of the searches.

Mr. McMaster: While welcoming those figures, may I ask my hon. Friend in what proportion of cases the arms and explosives have been found in known Republican hands? Is he aware of the growing concern about the increasing use of both explosives and incendiary devices and of the frustration that is felt by law-abiding citizens there?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that we are well aware of the concern that these explosions have caused. We make searches whenever there is good reason to believe that they may reveal arms, ammunition or explosives.
I am afraid that we do not have the figures which would enable us to break down the statistics in the way my hon. Friend requests me to do in the first part of his question. I assure him, however, that searches are carried out quite impartially on the basis of information received when there is good reason to believe that the information is accurate.

Mr. Delargy: What steps have been taken towards arresting the persons who murdered three Scottish soldiers in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Johnson Smith: That is a different matter which does not arise on this Question.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend used the word "firearms". Does that include automatic weapons? What are the countries of origin of the weapons recovered?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I do not have the information of the countries of origin, and my use of the word "firearms" of course included automatic weapons.

Mr. George Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the repeated suggestions from various quarters that something should be done to restrict the widespread ownership of legal firearms in Northern Ireland during the present emergency?

Mr. Johnson Smith: That is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many separate incidents involving the use of firearms or explosives have taken place in the last six weeks in Northern Ireland; and how many members of Her Majesty's forces have been injured as a result.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: In the period from 1st April to 10th May there have been 50 explosions and five shooting incidents. Four members of Her Majesty's Forces were injured in these incidents.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a tragic total in a very short period? Besides the four members of Her Majesty's Forces who have been injured, there have been numerous civilian casualties, including in the past week one elderly lady killed in a fire following such an explosion in my constituency. Will he study the origin of these murderous attacks and do something to improve the steps taken to prevent further such attacks in future so that those responsible should be detected quickly and a better record of arrests effected?

Mr. Johnson Smith: These are very sad and tragic events and we are concerned about them. The most effective way of reducing the number of explosions is by tighter control over the materials and devices used to cause these explosions. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware that all this is being actively explored by the Northern Ireland authorities.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are all concerned about injuries to soldiers in Northern Ireland? Is he also aware that for a long time a great many boarding houses in Bangor have been providing bed and breakfast at reduced rates for off-duty soldiers in this delightful resort in my constituency? Will he ensure that everything is done to help the soldiers in their off-duty

periods? They have a very onerous task in Northern Ireland and everything should be done to ensure that their morale is maintained at a high level.

Mr. Johnson Smith: We are all very concerned that morale should be maintained and sustained to the best of our ability.

Medium-lift Helicopter

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Minister of State for Defence when he now expects to announce the choice of the medium-lift helicopter for the Royal Air Force.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): The question whether to purchase a medium-lift helicopter for the Royal Air Force and, if so, which type, is still under consideration.

Mr. Tebbit: Is my hon. Friend aware that Press speculation is that the choice has been narrowed to only two types and is intensely of the opinion that the Air Force desperately wants this? Is he also aware that there is a good deal of concern, at any rate on these benches, that the purchasing policies for military equipment in recent years have been decidedly soft on making sure that we get "trade-backs" in the purchase of British equipment by the United States?

Mr. Lambton: With respect, I do not think that that is a question.

Gunnery Ranges

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will list the sites which are being considered for the gunnery ranges which will have to be moved, consequent on the decision to build the third London Airport at Foulness.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We are examining the possiblity of transferring the work of the Proof and Experimental Establishment, Shoeburyness, partly to West Freugh in Wigtownshire and partly to Spadeadam in Cumberland. Both are currently occupied by establishments of the former Ministry of Aviation Supply.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for that answer. May we have an assurance that there will be the greatest possible consultation with local people in either


case? May we also have an assurance that my hon. Friend will pay as much attention as he can to the dangers of spoiling the amenities of both these areas?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend both the assurances he requires. We will certainly bear the amenity factors in mind and consult the local authorities.

Mr. George Thomson: Will this transfer mean the sterilising of wider areas of land in these two places than are already in the hands of the Defence Department?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes, About 1,500 acres of privately-owned land will need to be acquired. No extra land will need to be acquired at Spadeadam. The additional land will not necessarily be sterilised. In addition to the use for which it will be required, it can go on being farmed.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will extra employment be going to the areas concerned?

Mr. Gilmour: That certainly follows; certainly as far as West Freugh is concerned.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of State for Defence what type of ship is currently employed in the Beira Patrol, and whether he has considered the use of fewer men or smaller ships, or diminished hours of alertness; and if, in view of the shortage of frigates, he will make a statement.

Mr. Kirk: We do not give details of such deployments, but they do not include ships smaller than frigates. The principal reasons for this are that smaller ships would not have the necessary speed or sea-keeping qualities to perform the patrol effectively and would require base support or a support ship which is not available in the area.

Mr. King: Is it not well known that all the oil comes up the other way and that this force has no function at all? If, for curious reasons, we must have a force dedicated to not stopping the oil, why cannot we have a smaller force not stopping it? Would not three men in a

boat not stop the oil as efficiently as three frigates?

Mr. Kirk: The oil comes up the other way because the patrol works. It cannot go in through Beira. All that we are required to do by the United Nations is to blockade the port of Beira.

Mr. Normanton: Is my hon. Friend unaware that not only the men who man the boats but people throughout the country have the feeling that this exercise, which we are perpetuating, is completely futile?

Mr. Kirk: That is clearly a matter for my right: hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to state the date on which the Government intend to stop the Beira. Patrol and whether that is their policy?

Mr. Kirk: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is now the running cost of the Beira Patrol, including expenditure by the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Kirk: The annual extra cost of maintaining the Beira Patrol continues at about £400,000, mainly attributable to aircraft support costs.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does that answer mean that we are now spending less on achieving nothing? Will the Ministry of Defence consult the Foreign Office, because the Foreign Secretary is to visit Lisbon and it is hardly conducive to good relations that this activity, which is incompatible with the alliance, should be continued?

Mr. Kirk: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary is that the extra cost remains roughly the same. The answer to the second part is that he should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. George Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the kind of questions which have been put to him by his back benchers do this country's reputation no good at all abroad and denigrate


the very effective operation carried out by the Royal Navy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in reply to a supplementary on Queston 13, he referred to us as being "required" by the United Nations to maintain this patrol? On reflection, does he confirm that that is the right word?

Mr. Kirk: As I understand the position—this again should be confirmed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—this is a mandatory resolution of the Security Council.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Minister of State for Defence (Official Engagements)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of his official engagements for Saturday, 5th June, 1971.

Lord Balniel: It is not the practice to do so.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that before the Government sell us out to the Common Market—I realise that they are already harmonising their evasive and negative replies, because this is the kind of reply we get to all these Questions—there is a very important anti-Common Market rally being held in Westminster which he and the Government should attend? Would he not be better employed there than giving evasive replies?

Lord Balniel: My reply was not in the least bit evasive. If this important meeting is taking place in the Houses of Parliament on 5th June, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's attendance in the House.

Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that 5th June is the day on which King George III's birthday will be celebrated near Windsor? Surely he should be in attendance there.

Lord Balniel: I am flattered that my attendance is required at so many places, but I have to inform the House that I

shall not even be in the country on that day.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is the day on which the Oaks race is run?

Armed Forces (Careers Information)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that information about careers in the Armed Forces is widely disseminated in schools, colleges, universities, etc.; whether he is satisfied that sufficient emphasis is placed on the ideals of patriotism and service in such a career; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: All three Services have careers staff and liaison officers who are active in schools, colleges and universities. Due emphasis is placed on the ideals of patriotism and service.

Mr. Stokes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he in a position to tell us about the 18 local education authorities which were not fully co-operating with the Government in this respect? As he promised to review the position, may I ask whether he has done so and will he tell us the names of those authorities still not fully complying with the Government's wishes?

Lord Balniel: Yes. I undertook to review the position in the light of the 18 local authorities which were not cooperating fully. I am happy to say that discussions are now proceeding between Ministry of Defence officials and local authorities to see whether facilities for Service career officers can be improved. I am hopeful that they will be improved.

Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend take particular care to put pressure on the Harlow authority which put every possible obstruction in the way? It even banned the bringing of careers vans on to council property. This is an absolutely scandalous state of affairs. I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend could assist me in pressurising this council into common sense.

Lord Balniel: This must be a matter for the local education authority to decide. But it is agreed between all parties in the House that the service


rendered by the Armed Forces is of crucial importance, so I hope that the authorities will co-operate.

Training Aircraft

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for the replacement of the Varsity Twin-engined Trainer for training of aircrew categories other than pilot.

Mr. Lambton: As my hon. Friend knows, the replacement of the Varsity in this role is under consideration. I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Wilkinson: If my hon. Friend has no statement to make, will he inform me whether a specification has gone out to British manufacturers who badly need a project of this kind to fill their rather depleted order books?

Mr. Lambton: Obviously this plane is needed. Consideration is being given as to what is the right type of plane and precisely what are the qualifications we want.

Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that the Government have new ideas of an Air Force Reserve?

Mr. Lambton: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Ashford Remand Centre

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys aged 14 and 15 years have spent how much time at Ashford Remand Centre during 1970; if he is satisfied with the conditions in which they are detained; and what action he is taking to improve the situation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): 358 were received in 1970, and stayed for an average of 29 days. Since August, 1970 Latchmere House has been increasingly used to relieve overcrowding art Ashford and boys aged 14 and 15 are given priority for transfer to Latchmere House.

Mr. Jenkins: As late as April this year the Howard League said that Ashford was still very seriously overcrowded and that boys who had not been convicted of any offence were kept

in for most of the day and provided with no suitable occupation. Will the Minister have another look at the matter?

Mr. Sharpies: Yes. I realise the problems at Ashford, but Latchmere House has made some contribution to the solution of the problem. We try to give boys on remand as much educational opportunity as possible within the facilities available.

Cinema Advertising

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received from cinema licensing authorities to his recent circular urging greater use of their powers to control offensive cinema advertising.

Mr. Sharpies: The circular drew attention to public concern over recent trends in film adversiting and invited local licensing authorities to consider whether they were making adequate use of their powers in this field. It did not call for a reply.

Sir R. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with what he has just told me? Does not he realise that there is great public concern over this, and if licensing authorities are not prepared on their own account to respond to it and to do what most decent people in the country would recommend, will not the Government take legislative steps to ensure that they do?

Mr. Sharples: The circular is concerned with the advertising side and we should give time for its effect to be seen. It was not generally appreciated, probably, by the public that the licensing authorities have this power and it is right that publicity should have been given to it.

Cinematograph Act, 1952

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to announce his proposals for the reform of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sharples: The proposals, on which my right hon. Friend is about to carry out consultations would require the control by cinema licensing authorities of all film exhibitions which are publicly advertised or for which admission


charges are made, unless the charges are confined to members of a club enrolled as such at least 24 hours previously; and would also involve applying the law of obscenity to all film exhibitions which are not controlled by licence.

Sir R. Thompson: I express my partial satisfaction at that rather qualified reply. Does my hon. Friend think that he is going far enough and moving fast enough in this matter? I first raised it in the House about ten months ago and progress since then seems to have been purely at the level of consultation. Can we have effective action?

Mr. Sharpies: I make no excuses for the progress which has been made. These steps are fairly far reaching and it is right that there should first be consultation with the trade and others concerned. Bringing film clubs within the application of the law of obscenity is a far-reaching step.

Scotland Yard Action (Armthorpe)

Mr. Kelley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the reason why £78,000 was removed from the home of an Armthorpe resident by Scotland Yard detectives, and held by them for 10 days against the wishes of the owner.

Mr. Sharples: Since the person concerned has expressed his intention of instituting legal proceedings, it would be improper for me to comment.

Mr. Kelley: I appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself. Is he aware that a writ has been issued against the police in this matter? Does not this case reveal a crying need for a top-level investigation into the methods of acquiring and acting upon information by the police? Is he further aware that action of this kind can cause considerable embarrassment to a perfectly law-abiding citizen? Is he also aware that a person can be deprived of a considerable sum of money over a long period while forensic investigations are taking place? Does not he consider that the Home Office is entitled to take some action in this matter?

Mr. Sharpies: My understanding is that the money has been returned. If it is wished to make a complaint against the police, the proper procedure exists.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask a general question without going into this particular case? What right have the police to go into any place without a warrant? If they have a warrant, have they the power automatically to take anything if they have some ground for suspicion that it has been stolen or is not in the ownership of the right person? What is the statutory authority under which the police act? I am referring to the general case and not to the particular case mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Sharples: The Question refers to a specific instance and it would be wrong for me to comment, in relation to a specific instance, in general terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Public Service Pensions

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether the pensions increases to public servants will be applied to the superannuitants of British Railways and to the gas and electricity industries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The Bill now before the House will cover certain groups of nationalised industries' pensioners who retired before nationalisation and were in central or local government service. For all others, the decision lies with the boards of the nationalised industries concerned.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Am I to understand that those in the nationalised industries, who in the past have benefited when we have given a general public service increase, are to have their share as well? It will be very welcome, because they need it.

Mr. Howell: The only group directly affected by the Bill are those who were local or central government employees who retired before the nationalisation of gas or electricity, or the former employees of the Post Office who retired before the Post Office Corporation was set up. For the remainder, it is entirely for the boards concerned to make their pension valuations.

Dame Irene Ward: Poke them up.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will former Members of Parliament, now retired, come under the Bill? If my guesswork is right, they will not. If I am right, why will they not? Is it right that a Member who gave 48 years service to the House of Commons should get only a miserly pension and that he and other such pensioners are kept waiting and so shabbily treated by both Conservative and Labour Governments?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's guesswork is right. Pension arrangements for Members is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Jitney: Is nothing being done for the old railway employees who went on with British Railways after nationalisation for a few years?

Mr. Howell: Their pensions are the responsibility of British Railways and will no doubt be dealt with by the board.

Dame Irene Ward: Poke them up.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In view of the erosion of pensioners' remunerations because of the Government's failure to control the rise in the cost of living, will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and see whether he can broaden the base so that more pensioners will benefit from these arrangements?

Mr. Howell: No, Sir, because these arrangements are comprehensive and cover the areas where the Government or the local authorities are the employers or have responsibility. The pension arrangements of former employees of nationalised industries who have retired since nationalisation is by law the responsibility of the boards.

Dame Irene Ward: Poke them up.

Mr. Costain: One of the attractions of joining the railways at one time was the prospect of getting a pension at the end of one's career. It was an attractive job under 'those conditions, but does my hon. Friend realise that, with the lapse of time, the pensions are inadequate? Is there anything we can do to help these people, who have lived under this illusion for a number of years?

Mr. Howell: I sympathise with that point but these are matters for the British

Railways Board, whose responsibility it is, to decide.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Sitting is suspended until 3.15 p.m.

3.7 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

3.15 p.m.

On resuming—

Mr. Speaker: I suspended the House because I was advised that I have no power to allow a Question to the Prime Minister before 3.15 p.m. I think that that is a matter that might be considered by those in authority.

Mr. Harold Wilson: So as not to waste time now, may I give notice of a point of order that I wish to raise on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received about unemployment this month; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Fifteen, Sir. All of them relate to personal cases, which are being followed up by the Department of Employment.

Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this very moment all over England and Wales, people are marching eagerly into the polling stations to vote against the Government as they did in Scotland on 4th May? Does he understand that one of the prime reasons why his Government will be rejected at the polls tonight is the scandalous level of unemployment of over 800,000? Will he, once he has recovered from the trauma of the electoral position, consider over the weekend honouring his pledge to reduce unemployment at a stroke?

The Prime Minister: Neither of the points the hon. Gentleman has made are reflected in the 15 letters I have received. As to this weekend, I propose to spend it in Scotland.

Mr. Rose: Is the Prime Minister aware that the disturbing feature of these unemployment figures is their application to hitherto prosperous areas? Would he


particularly consider the fact that there are probably 20,000 redundancies in the pipeline already in the Greater Manchester area and that this follows the demise of coal and cotton in that area? Is he aware that he is deliberately creating a new depressed area in another part of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has absolutely no justification for making that statement. As he well knows, in this House motivation is not attributed to hon. Members. One of the most difficult areas is that of the central belt of Scotland and we as a Government have taken specific action to deal with it through the creation of the new special development area.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the high rate of unemployment and unused resources generally, would the right hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of a large public works programme particularly in Scotland where it will be vital to provide infrastructure, ports and roads leading to the East Coast if we go into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: That is an absolutely valid point. We have always made it the basis of our regional development policy that the infrastructure should be improved to enable industry to be efficient and to gain markets abroad.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall my asking some weeks ago about this relatively new factor, the growth of white-collar unemployment among executives, designers, salemen and others? He promised to look into that. Has he any statement to make about it? This is a matter which is in the postbags of most hon. Members. Is it in the Prime Minister's? Secondly, while he disclaims Government responsibility for any of the unemployment may I ask whether he has seen the report on new chemical investment which speaks of tremendous cuts in chemical plant investment, largely attributed to the withdrawal of investment grants?

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make at the moment specifically about white-collar employment. Obviously it is part of the general problem of unemployment in this country which will be alleviated by an expanding economy when wage in-

flation has been overcome. As to chemical investment, it may be that one of the factors taken into account is the change from the grant to investment allowances, but that is not the view of the chemical industry as a whole. It has made its judgment on other considerations.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the most serious features of the unemployment situation even in January, barely six months after the present Government came into office, was the fact that over 27 per cent. of those unemployed in January had been unemployed for more than six months? Is this not a clear indication that the policies of the last Government have led to this situation?

The Prime Minister: The last Government had a very similar problem. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said that it was only restraint on incomes which could prevent unemployment, and I agree with him.

Mr. Ford: Does the Prime Minister realise that the reason why he has not received more letters from the public is that people understand that the answers they would receive would be even less helpful than the answers he gives in this House?

The Prime Minister: I have received just over 90,000 letters, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's conclusion is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has to participate in Great Britain's negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister: The negotiations remain the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the vast majority of my hon. Friends on this side of the House fully share his confidence in the negotiating skills of my right hon and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,


and are most encouraged by the good news which has been coming from Brussels in the last few days? Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity on his visit to France to reiterate the political will of this Government to enter the Common Market if the good progress in negotiations can be maintained? In particular, will he ask the President to use his good offices to maintain the pace of the negotiations so that a successful conclusion can be reached within the next two months?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thought that the House as a whole would be glad at the progress made at the last meeting in Brussels. I look forward to my meeting with the President of France to review the whole of the European scene, in addition to the particular question of the negotiations.

Mr. John Mendelson: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the remarks of Lord Campbell on the radio earlier today, speaking with the authority of the Association of British Sugar Producers, that there has been no progress at all, that the agreement about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor seems to be so enthusiastic means that there will be no certainty at all for the people in Mauritius, Barbados and the Caribbean, that they cannot plan their bank advances for full production, and that a sell-out has been advertised as a break-through? Will he see that there is not the same fraudulent terminology used in future so that the sugar agreement is not against the interests of sugar producers in the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I did not hear Lord Campbell's remarks, but it may be that, not for the first time, I should have disagreed with him if I had.

Sir D. Renton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that during the last election many of us gave undertakings to our constituents that, between the publication of the terms agreed and reaching a decision in this House, we would consult our constituents, and that in large agricultural constituencies that may take some time?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course I take note of my right hon. and learned Friend's point.

Mr. Peart: Will the Prime Minister recognise that his right hon. and learned Friend gave firm assurances to the West Indies when he was there, in what I thought was a successful visit, as to long-term access to the Community? But is he not aware that the formula now agreed is worthless and that there has been a climb-down? I hope we shall have a full report when the Minister comes back, because this formula will cause considerable dismay to friends in the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, India and the African States.

The Prime Minister: Of course my right hon. and learned Friend will give a full report to the House when he returns. As the House knows, he has gone to the E.F.T.A. Ministerial meeting, which is quite right. In regard to assurances, it is a firm assurance that will be implemented, if negotiations are successful between ourselves and members of the Community, when we are enjoying our full rights as a member. That is the importance of the assurances.

Mr. Peart: Would the right hon. Gentleman stress the importance of "bankability", if I may use the phrase of a distinguished Caribbean Minister, Robert Lightborne, when he insisted on assurances on this matter before any agreement was reached, since there has been a change of attitude?

The Prime Minister: There has been no change of attitude at all because my right hon. and learned Friend has obtained assurances which will be implemented when we ourselves are a member of the Community, if the negotiations succeed. Therefore, we have our full rights in any future arrangements that will be made.

Mr. Marten: As both major political parties must in practice agree to entry into the Market before we go in, would the Prime Minister have the foresight to take the Leader of the Opposition with him when he meets President Pompidou so that at least he can continue the truncated saga which goes under the name of the "Soames Affair"?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that would be in the national interest.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us have great confidence in the negotiating abilities of


the Chancellor of the Duchy? Is he further aware that many of us think that far better purposes are served by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition remaining in this country in attempting to strengthen the political will to join Europe among some of their back benchers?

The Prime Minister: It is right that when a Minister of the Crown is given responsibility for negotiations he should carry them out within the remit given to him by his colleagues. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has been doing. So far as I am concerned as Prime Minister, there is a responsibility to meet other Heads of Government and to discuss the general issues of the future of Europe. So far as this country is concerned, when the possibility of a settlement in the negotiations becomes clear, then the country can discuss these matters, and I believe that it will then recognise the advantages of a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESERTED FAMILIES

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister which Government Department has the task of tracing breadwinners of families who have been deserted.

The Prime Minister: In England and Wales, when the courts request it, information is made available for this purpose from the central social security records and the records of the National Health Service, the Passport Office and the Ministry of Defence. Where families are in receipt of supplementary benefit the Supplementary Benefits Commission assists in tracing the person who is liable to maintain them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly be writing to magistrates' courts advising them to make the fullest use of these facilities.
There are similar arrangements in Scotland and these are being brought to the attention of solicitors in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: This may not be the most tactful day on which to raise the question of tracing people—[Interruption.] But, as the Prime Minister senses, there is on all sides of the House an intensified feeling that this is an urgent problem. Would he give a Prime Ministerial directive to Whitehall, in

anticipation of the Finer Committee report on the one-parent family, to work out the mechanics of the collection and payment of alimony in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it possible for me to anticipate the report of the Committee because I have no knowledge of what its recommendations will be. In the present situation I should have thought that the machinery I have outlined in a full answer and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to write to all the magistrates' courts—and in Scotland this matter will be handled through solicitors—will go a long way to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman, who has taken an intense personal interest in this matter.

Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although these arrangements look well on paper, they are not working in practice? A large number of families are being maintained by the State simply because the breadwinner cannot—or will not—be traced?

The Prime Minister: It is possible that there are cases in which, even with the use of all the available machinery it is not possible to trace the persons concerned, which I regret. On the other hand, we are going to the utmost lengths to enable people to be traced without giving away confidential information. From recent events which we discussed in the House last Tuesday, it must be apparent to all that there is a delicate dividing line between the provision of the information which will allow these problems to be dealt with and the withholding of information, in circumstances in which it would be quite wrong for personal details to be made available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS SALES (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for Defence, and for Trade and Industry on the promotion of arms sales overseas; and what changes have been made in the procedures since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for Defence and for Trade and Industry on the promotion of arms sales overseas; and what changes have been made in the procedures since 18th June, 1970.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for Defence and for Trade and Industry on the promotion of arms sales overseas; and what changes have been made in the procedures since 18th June, 1970.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for Defence and for Trade and Industry on the promotion of arms sales overseas; and what changes have been made in the procedures since 18th June, 1970.

The Prime Minister: With the dissolution of the Ministry of Aviation Supply on 1st May the whole Defence Sales Organisation now comes under my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. There is close coordination between all Departments concerned with the promotion of arms sales overseas.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Under the new organisation, will there be an identifiable individual arms salesman, as there was under the previous Government, and will this organisation promote the sales of private designs such as the Vosper Thorneycroft corvette in addition to sales of standard British Service equipment?

The Prime Minister: What is important is the actual organisation itself within the Ministry of Defence and not a particular person being named to carry it out. Government Departments will give every assistance to our own manufacturers in sales of weapons.

Sir F. Bennett: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that under the new arrangement there will at least be no repetition of the squalid plot and

counterplot that took place under the previous Administration in this field of Government activity, as revealed in Lord George-Brown's memoirs?

The Prime Minister: These matters are best left to the memoirs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will now invite the President of France to visit London, or, alternatively, if he will seek an early opportunity to visit the President in Paris.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting President Pompidou in Paris on 20th and 21st May.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure all Members on all sides will wish god-speed to my right hon. Friend on a mission which could be of decisive importance for the future of Western Europe for the next 50 years. Will he take the occasion to point out to the President of France that the achievement of a European Europe must lie in the enlargement of the Community and that if the present negotiations were by any disaster allowed to fail, hopes of achieving independence for Western Europe in political, commercial and military matters might be put off for a decade or even for good?

The Prime Minister: I think I know what my hon. Friend meant. I hope that he also wishes me a fair voyage and a happy return. On his general thesis, we are in agreement.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Leaving aside the religious fervour of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), will the Prime Minister put it to the President of France that vague assurances about Commonwealth sugar are no substitute for guaranteed and quantified access? Is he aware that in this House, as outside it, there is a growing sense of being betrayed?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. What is important is that when the Community gives firm assurances we ourselves will be able to implement these as a member—

Mr. John Mendelson: Too late.

The Prime Minister: It is not in any way too late because the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement runs until 1974 by which time, if the negotiations are successful, we shall have been a member of the Community for more than a year. Therefore, this is the most firm assurance which we ourselves will be in a position to implement.

Mr. Adley: When the Prime Minister meets the President of France, will he ask whether he enjoyed his flight in Concorde?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to discuss the future of Concorde with the President.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Although the House has not had a chance to study what has come out of Brussels and has not had a report from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is the Prime Minister saying that his interpretation of the Brussels undertaking—that the Community will look at the matter with a "full heart", or whatever the phrase was—means that we can insist that the 1974 arrangements be continued? But would such continuance be subject to veto by any one country?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman has not been exact in his quotation of the phrase used, but my right hon. and learned Friend will be reporting fully to the House on Monday and will give all the details. I am saying that we shall have our full rights in the Community. This would include the right of veto in the last resort. Obviously, sugar would then be a matter for negotiation within the Community, not only in relation to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement but also to associated States which have sugar interests. We ourselves negotiated on a "rolling basis" up to 1974, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because the previous Administration concluded the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Agreement has always been a matter of negotiation between ourselves and the countries concerned which are members of it; and in future, too, sugar will be a matter for negotiation

Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman misheard me when I referred to a veto. I was not concerned whether Britain would have a veto, but if

it is a question of continuing arrangements beyond 1974, with the assent that is required of the Six, would any one country of the Six or of the enlarged Community be able to veto any proposal we made to extend the arrangements?

The Prime Minister: The Community itself has given this undertaking that the arrangements will be made. This is the purpose of the undertaking. In any case, my right hon. Friend is under an obligation to consult the sugar-producing countries about the undertaking he received.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter. When you suspended the sitting you, as I understand it, told the House you were so advised and, so far as I am aware, this is in full consonance with the Standing Orders governing the business of the House. I wanted to ask you whether, in your consideration of this matter, which you said should be considered further even if it means changing the Standing Order, you are aware that at least on one past occasion your predecessor, finding that the earlier Questions had folded up, asked the leave of the House to start Questions to the Prime Minister before 3.15. Without impugning your decision, which is covered by the Standing Order, will you take that precedent into account?

Mr. Speaker: I was advised that I had no power to do that and that any attempt on my part to do so would be in breach of the Standing Order, with or without the leave of the House. But it is a matter which requires consideration.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. At five minutes past three, when you decided to suspend the sitting, I was in fact on my feet endeavouring to catch your eye in order to ask a supplementary question arising out of Question No. 33. Question Time is extremely valuable to hon. Members who wish to probe Ministerial decisions. Is it in accordance with precedent that a sitting should be suspended when an hon. Member is on his feet endeavouring to catch your eye?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is much precedent governing the situation. That is one of the reasons why I suspended the sitting when I did. In any event, the calling of hon. Members is a matter for the Chair's discretion.

Mr. James Hamilton: On a point of order. When the sitting resumed for Prime Minister's Questions, it was very noticeable that Questions Q4, Q5, Q10 and Q11 were identical in almost every respect. Is not that an abuse of the period for Questions to the Prime Minister, since it is extremely unfair to back-bench hon. Members and, on this occasion, was obviously organised by the Government Whips?

Mr. Speaker: There are many precedents. The hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends have acted similarly on previous occasions. However, the Chair has a remedy. It need not necessarily call every hon. Member with a Question to put a supplementary question, nor did I.

Sir F. Bennett: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that you have made that point. You will recall that there have been at least seven occasions when a similar state of affairs has arisen among right hon. and hon. Members on the benches opposite. On one of those occasions, there were not four but five identical Questions.

Mr. Speaker: That is interesting.

Dame Irene Ward: Further to that point of order. In view of the fact that Question No. 33 was my own, will you bear in mind in future that I could ask 10 supplementaries on it?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether that is an inducement or a deterrent.

KENT (IMPORTED CHERRIES)

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why 200 tons of Italian cherries are to be allowed to come to Hither Green for plant health examination, when this crop has been banned for the past two years on account of fruit fly.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): Because of

the risk of introducing cherry fruit fly plant health import regulations currently prohibit the importation of raw cherries from the whole of Italy after 31st May. My scientific advisers are satisfied that in certain areas in Northern Italy control measures now in operation justify allowing trial consignments from these areas under special licence to arrive after that date. These consignments which must arrive in this country before 15th June will be carefully examined by my inspectors before being released for distribution.

Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Italians are extremely lax in their spraying programmes and, therefore, that this fruit must be highly suspect? It could have been examined cheaply and conveniently either at the port of entry or in Italy, and not brought to Hither Green, passing through the heart of the best cherry growing land in England. Is this is an example of my right hon. Friend bending over backwards to be a good European, thereby disregarding the interests of British horticulture? Furthermore, what has happened to all the assurances that the British agriculture plant health inspectors were to outsmart the continentals? We seem to have been outsmarted before we have begun.

Mr. Prior: This is an example of my hon. Friend's capacity for exaggeration. In so far as these bugs are to be allowed in—the fruit will be carefully inspected—they will not come as flies but as larvae, so that they cannot do any damage on the way through the cherry orchards of Kent. There will be a very careful examination. These are trials only. My scientific advisers went over this time last year to Italy to see whether the Italians were conforming with plant health regulations. They are doing so and I therefore have no power to stop the fruit from coming.

Mr. English: Is there not a serious point involved here? When the Treaty of Rome says that, even if one is a member of the Economic Community, one can still prohibit the import of any item if it contravenes health regulations, does that apply only to the health of human beings, or does it apply to diseases of plants and animals?

Mr. Prior: That is a slightly different question. Plant health controls in this country have been justified under the 1951 International Plant Protection Convention. There are draft directives on plant health controls within the Common Market, but they have not yet come into operation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since British housewives will find it difficult to shop around in Rome or Florence, is not it better for the Italian cherries to be brought here, especially in view of the fact that the Government believe in competition?

Mr. Prior: Provided that these cherries are not bug-ridden when they arrive, I think that they are of advantage to the British housewife.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH MAY—Supply (19th allotted day): There will be a debate on Consumer Protection, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motion relating to The Intermediate Areas Order.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY, 18TH MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH MAY—A debate will take place on the White Paper on Local Government in England. Command No. 4584.
Remaining stages of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill and of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH MAY—Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 21ST MAY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 24TH MAY—Supply (20th allotted day): There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion relating to steel.
Sir, the House will wish to know that it is intended to propose that we should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday, 28th May, until Tuesday, 8th June.

Mr. Harold Wilson: With regard to Monday's debate, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for the convenience of the House, we shall table the Motion today which will be debated on Monday? It will call attention to the decision of the House unanimously to reconstitute the consumer protection machinery and to insist that the Government now act in accordance with the Motion moved last Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), since we should not want anyone to think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite only supported it before the municipal elections and have changed their minds since.
With regard to the debate the following Monday on the steel industry, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced several weeks ago that he would be making a statement on reorganisation, and that the time that the right hon. Gentleman promised that by has now passed? Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. Friend to make a statement on reorganisation in advance of the debate on Monday week so that we know the Government's policy on what we are debating, rather than have it announced afterwards?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be tabling a Motion on consumer protection which will be debated on Monday, when all the matters that he has referred to can be discussed.
As for the Supply Day on steel, I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot give any commitment in that sense.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have, over past months, been pressing him for a debate on the Report on defence research from the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Since completing that exercise, we have the new Government White Paper on


Defence Procurement. May we have an indication of the Government's plan for debating both documents?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been pressed on a number of occasions in the past to see whether it was possible to have a debate. I note the added importance of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement by our negotiator in Europe next Monday is not sufficient, in the light of the reports which have been emerging from the negotiations? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that, despite the euphoria in the Press and the discussion by the Press on the Common Market negotiations, this House is entitled to take part in the great debate on whether we should go into Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman look closely at the fact that, if we cannot have a debate next week, certainly we should have one in the immediate future, since it appears as though the interests of the Commonwealth, of E.F.T.A. and of the British people are being sold down the river at the moment?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without agreeing with some of the hon. Gentleman's deductions, which are not for me in questions on the business statement, the Government have promised that, on every occasion that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster returns from negotiations in Europe, he will report to the House at the earliest opportunity. My right hon. Friend is attending another meeting for the rest of the week. Therefore, he will report to the House at the earliest opportunity, on Monday. I think that it is right to await my right hon. Friend's statement in the first instance.

Sir D. Renton: Am I to understand that the debate on local government reorganisation will be on a Motion merely to take note of the White Paper and not to approve it at that stage?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the House will wish at this stage to have a preliminary debate on this subject. That is the purpose of the debate next week. I am prepared to consider through the usual channels how best the debate should be mounted, but I think, on balance, that to take note of it is probably the right course.

Sir G. de Freitas: With regard to the steel debate, will the Leader of the House impress upon his right hon. friend the Secretary of State that, in fairness to right hon. and hon. Members who represent steel constituencies, a statement must be made before the debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I told the Leader of the Opposition, I have noted the wish expressed in this regard. Obviously I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I shall pass these views to him and see that he is made fully aware of them.

Mr. Gorst: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 553 on the subject of televising the proceedings of the House? Has he also noted that more than 110 hon. Members from all sides of the House have given it their support? Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to find time for a debate before the Whitsun Recess?

[That this House favours the experimental televising of its proceedings on closed circuit for a period of six months.]

Mr. Whitelaw: As my hon. Friend will know, this matter was debated in the last Parliament and, by what was described as "the narrowest possible majority", was rejected. I have always believed that a new Parliament should have an opportunity to debate this subject at the appropriate time and to come to a decision on it again. I have also felt, and I believe that it is a view which is widely shared, that a new Parliament with a large number of hon. Members new to the House should have considerable time to consider all the aspects before having such a debate. It is impossible to decide now when the right moment for such a debate would be. I think that it is still too early. Certainly it would be too early before the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the extraordinary constitutional importance of the Common Market negotiations, will the Leader of the House accept that the Government should seek the opinion and advice of the House of Commons before finally committing themselves as a Government to any set of proposals which might emerge? While normally the House would agree that any negotiation on an ordinary treaty should continue to


its end, with the Government then presenting the treaty for ratification, in view of the importance of these negotiations, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to arrange a two-day debate prior to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster finally committing his Government to a set of proposals at the end of these negotiations.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what has been said on the subject.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Has not the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government intend to have a broad debate on a take-note Motion when the White Paper of the proposed terms is available, before any decision is taken? Will he bear in mind—and I am not sure whether this is what my hon. Friend is asking for—that in view of the practice of apparently settling one or two issues at a time and announcing acceptance it might be fruitful if there were talks, through the usual channels about a possible debate not on a White Paper but in advance of the next series of negotiations in Brussels? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give consideration to that?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir, most certainly. I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels on exactly how the matter should be handled to the best advantage of the House as a whole during all the preceding arrangements. Whatever may happen, I am most anxious to see that the House has the proper arrangements for debating these questions.

Mr. Chapman: Bearing in mind the recent instances of the destruction of so many buildings of architectural interest, highlighting and publicising a continuing disgraceful trend, and in view of the deep anxiety and bitterness felt by so many people, will my right hon. Friend arrange to have a short debate immediately after, if not before, the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise some of the anxieties to which my hon. Friend refers, but I cannot offer time for a debate on the subject in the near future.

Mr. Ford: When does the Leader of the House intend to announce the composition of the Boyle Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: As soon as possible, Sir.

Mr. Raison: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the important first Report of the Hospital Advisory Service?

Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the importance of the Report. It is obviously one which right hon. and hon. Members will wish to consider carefully. Therefore, I cannot promise time for a debate at this stage.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Leader of the House has quite rightly helped us considerably with the debate on steel. A number of hon. Members have signed my Motion on the subject.

[That this House deplores the effect of Her Majesty's Government's policies and attitudes which are damaging the long-term development plans of the British Steel Corporation; asserts that the increasing levels of redundancy in the industry are unacceptable; declares that the lowest level of steel production for eight years could have been avoided; protests that Government interference on steel prices and public utterances of non-intervention are contradictory postures frustrating the good management of the industry and its production potential; regrets that no steps have been taken to reduce the importation of steel and steel pipes; objects to announcements of closures and redundancies in breach of assurances of prior consultation or without any statement in the House of Commons; and draws attention to the lack of Government policy to change the course of events in the steel industry at a time when the unemployment figures in the country have reached the highest level in 30 years.]

The statement about the deep-seated study by the Secretary of State concerns us. Therefore, in addition to assuring the House that he will convey our feeling on the matter to his right hon. Friend, while saying that he cannot commit his right hon. Friend, will the right hon. Gentleman take note that, if the Secretary of State makes a statement on the day of the debate after the warning today, that will be construed as having led the House into a situation where it cannot be prepared adequately to debate this serious matter? Therefore, will he indicate next week either to the House or through the usual channels whether the Secretary of State can make a statement?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to take note of his view. I know his interest in the matter, and certainly will take note of it. But he went on to draw from that various deductions and views as to what would or would not be suitable. I shall take note of that as well, without necessarily agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marten: Further to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on specific items in the Common Market negotiations, my right hon. Friend will have observed with deep interest the reported—I repeat "reported"—terms of the sugar deal in those negotiations. Therefore, will he consider the excellent Motion signed by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), which demands firm assurances as a prerequisite for entry?

[That this House, while recognising that the six European Economic Community countries have a large surplus of sugar beet, realises also that all the developing Commonwealth sugar-producing countries are overwhelmingly dependent on the existing Commonwealth Sugar Agreement with the United Kingdom, both as to quantity and price, since they can neither significantly diversify their product nor their market; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that their unique situation is safeguarded during the current negotiations to join the European Economic Community as a pre-condition of entry.]

That would be a very good Motion for debate.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not at this stage wish to go any further than what I said in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I am prepared to discuss all these mattres through the usual channels. As to what has been reported on all these questions, hon. Members will obivously wish to await the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Monday, and thereafter to see what they feel.

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman yesterday gave us a very satisfactory, though interim, reply on the question of the system of the allocation of Gallery tickets. Will he refer the matter to the Services Committee? If so, when?

Mr. Whitelaw: I made two points to the hon. Gentleman yesterday in answering his Question. One was that if there were a widespread desire in the House that I should do so, I should, of course, refer the matter to the Services Committee. Second, I said that much of the remedy for the empty seats in the Gallery at Question Time lay in the hands of right hon. and hon. Members, in that if they were not using their admission orders they could return them to the Admission Order Office. I should like an opportunity to be given to see whether right hon. and hon. Members respond to that suggestion before I go any further with the matter. If they do not, and if the situation remains unsatisfactory, certainly I am prepared that the Services Committee should consider it. But even if it does, it cannot overcome the situation if hon. Members put the tickets in their pockets and do not hand them on when they are not using them.

Mr. Rost: When will my right hon. Friend hind time to debate the White Paper on commercial radio? When will he be able to announce the Government's legislative programme, bearing in mind the uncertainty in the forward planning necessary within the industry so that it can prepare itself for a smooth start to commercial radio?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when this will take place. I note its importance, and I hope that it will be fairly soon. I cannot give any indication at this stage.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House in answer to a question referred to the statements being made in Brussels by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As we know, in all these negotiations the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives Press conferences, makes radio broadcasts to this country, and takes part in discussion on the B.B.C. Does not the Leader of the House think that he and the Government owe it to the House to see that statements are made to the House on the same day or the day after the statements are made to Press correspondents? If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster cannot do it, one of the Foreign Office Ministers should come here the day after the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his statement in Brussels to keep the


House informed. Why should the general public be informed, and not the House of Commons?

Mr. Whitelaw: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that I must have been even less clear in my expression than usual, because I was referring to statements by my right hon. and learned Friend in the House. As far as I know, I made no reference to his statements in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had made such a reference. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that is what he said. I have always made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend would make statements in the House at the earliest possible moment after he returned. I believe that is what hon. Members wish, and it is what they have had on every occasion. It was made perfectly clear to the House on this occasion that he was going on to another meeting and therefore the earliest available opportunity would be on Monday. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on Monday, and I think that that is generally satisfactory to the House as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order I can allow two more questions from hon. Members who have already risen.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Leader of the House will have noted Motion No. 539, on the value-added tax on food, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer).

[That this House, noting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to introduce, independently of Great Britain's application to become a member of the European Economic Community, a value-added tax in 1973, and further noting that if this tax were to be applied to foodstuffs it would represent a major switch in fiscal policy which would have grave adverse effects on the living standards of the British people,

especially the old, the sick and the lower-paid, therefore asks Her Majesty's Government for a categorical assurance that the value-added tax will not be applied to food.]

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the impact of value-added tax should be taken into consideration in a debate upon the Common Market of the sort suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Could that debate be so framed as to embrace that possibility?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is very dangerous for me to express my view on what may or may not be debatable in a particular debate. It is not for me to do so. Therefore, my view is of no more and no less value that that of any other right hon. or hon. Member. I would only say that if such debates take place on wide-ranging Motions it is inevitable that most of these matters can he discussed.

Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, on the question of broadcasting the proceedings of the House, that the House has already had a closed-circuit experiment on radio broadcasting, and that there is a great deal to be said for the House removing the ban on radio broadcasting of its proceedings as a stage on the way—or not on the way, as the case may be—to a partial solution to some of the problems of broadcasting the proceedings in other manners also?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. All these questions are very much a matter for the House as a whole to consider and decide as it thinks best. I am absolutely in the hands of the House in this matter. When there is a strong feeling throughout the House that the time has come to debate these matters and to decide what further course we should take, naturally I should be only too ready to provide time. I have not yet heard that very widespread desire, although, of course, I have noted the Motion signed by a large number of hon. Members.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (recommitted) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee, as amended in the Select Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I seek your advice and guidance, as the guardian of the rights and interests of the members of the Committee. We are about to engage in a discussion based on a report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the work which our colleagues did on the Select Committee. They had 11 sessions and produced a report of about 180 pages. I complain, Sir Robert, that the Government did not place this report in the Vote Office until Tuesday night. I do not think that this gives the House and the Committee adequate time to consider this interesting and important report, a report which is only before us once every five years. That is my point of order.
I should add that we are not helped by the singularly clumsy way in which the Government, from the beginning, have handled the Bill. They thought best to introduce it in the House of Lords to begin with, and then thought that they had made a mistake. It is unfortunate that, now we have reached the Committee stage, we had a very short time to consider the report before putting down Amendments.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of Mr. Speaker to the point he wished to raise. Mr. Speaker has asked me to deal with it as it was being raised about business in Committee. In so far as that was a point of order, I am satisfied that all possible steps were taken to produce the report in as short a time as possible. The facts about that are not, strictly, a matter of order.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, may I say that I

respect his view. In view of the shortness of this time, I took special care to make sure that this matter was discussed and that consideration was given to it. I was given to understand that this was accepted by the party opposite, and it was only on that basis that I was prepared to proceed.

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8

INSUBORDINATE BEHAVIOUR, AND DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL COMMANDS

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 8, line 37, at beginning insert:
(1) Section 33 of the Army Act, 1955, and section 33 of the Air Force Act, 1955 (insubordinate behaviour) shall each be amended by substituting the following for the proviso to subsection (1) (which limits imprisonment to two years for offences not committed on active service and not involving violence)—
'Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged under this subsection to prove that he neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was his superior officer.'
With the consent of the Committee and for its convenience; I propose to discuss this Amendment to Clause 8, with Amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 3, leave out from first 'provisions' to 'shall' in line 5. The Clause was amended by the Select Committee, which took evidence on it and decided that while it was acceptable to retain a specific offence of behaving with contempt to a superior officer—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Under-Secretary. As I have not selected the two Amendments to Clause 8 to be taken together, I think perhaps I should have the leave of the House to take them together. If that is the wish of the Committee, it is agreeable to me.

Mr. George Thomson: Mr. George Thomson indicated assent.

Mr. Lambton: Thank you, Sir Robert. The Select Committee decided that while it was acceptable to retain a specific offence of behaving with contempt to a superior officer in the Naval Discipline


Act, where it has featured, I think, for over 200 years, it was not desirable to include such a specific offence in the Army and Air Force Acts, which have never had it.
This would, of course, be an exception to the commonality of the scheme of offences, but we do not object to it on this score. After all, contempt to a superior officer has always been an offence in all three Services and, under whatever name it is called, it will continue to be so. The only difference is that whereas such an offence in the Navy is charged under a specific section of the Naval Discipline Act, in the Army and the R.A.F. it is charged as the more general offence of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.
The Clause in its present form is, however, defective. Firstly, the loss of the original Clause 8(1)(b) has the effect of retaining differential levels of maximum punishment for offences of insubordinate behaviour in Army and Air Force Acts, according to whether or not offences are committed on active service or involve violence. There is no such differentiation under the Naval Disclipline Act and the present Bill abolishes it elsewhere in Army and Air Force Acts. This is an inconsistency which, in our view, and, I hope, in that of the Committee, ought to be removed.
Secondly, there will be available to a person charged with an offence of insubordinate behaviour under the Naval Discipline Act a defence that he neither knew nor had reasonable cause to believe that the person in relation to whom the offence is alleged to have been committed was his superior officer, but no such defence will be available under the Army and Air Force Acts. Again, I hope that the House will agree that this defence must and should be available to all Servicemen who are so charged.
The Amendment removes these two differences. It also corrects minor deficiencies in the wording of the Clause and of Schedule 1.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I support the Amendment. This is due primarily to the width of the Amendment that I proposed in Committee to prevent the crime of contempt

in the Royal Navy from being extended to the R.A.F. and the Army. I take exception to the views expressed by the Under-Secretary in one respect. He implied that the offence of contempt in respect of seamen in the Royal Navy was acceptable. He will recall that this was contested in Committee, and, though we did not divide, it is my view that, when we next have an Armed Forces Bill in five years' time, we will have to consider very seriously the retention of this rather old, out-dated offence in the Royal Navy. With that due notice that it will be my intention, if I am a Member of the House, so to do, I support the Amendment.

Mr. John Morris: The reason for the Under-Secretary having to introduce the Amendment is the success of my hon. Friend the member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in ensuring that the offence of contempt, as set out in the original Clause 8, was not extended to the other two Services. I confirm that there was and is dissatisfaction that this power should remain with the Navy. I am conscious that the Navy prefers to do things in its own way, and the same applies to the other Armed Services.
The whole purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, and of the reasoning behind the observations of the last Select Committee is that each of the Services should as best it can rationalise with the other Services. If each of the three Services had not done that in respect of the matters dealt with in the various Clauses, we would not have achieved the result that has been achieved. It is a matter of congratulation that each of the Services has gone this far. Each Service has had its sticking points. It was not always reason that lay behind the points sticking; sometimes it was tradition. I appreciate the tradition which lies behind many of these matters which, in the words of the witness for the Air Force, were dear to the hearts of that Service.
My hon. Friend has rightly said that in due course—I hope when the next Bill is considered—this matter will again come up. By that time the Navy will realise that the other Services can deal wifh their discipline under more general provisions and that their discipline does not suffer because they do not have the advantage


of this provision. It may well be that in due course the Navy will recognise the reality and not wish to plough its own furrow.

Mr. Lambton: I thank the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) and the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) for their reasoned speeches. This matter of contempt will, in the nature of events, be considered before the next Bill is presented in five years' time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 9, line 3, leave out from first 'provisions' to 'shall' in line 5.—[Mr. Lambton.]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, I will put en bloc—if anyone demurs I will of course listen to him at once—Clauses 9 to 46.

Clauses 9 to 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 47

AMENDMENTS AS TO SUMMARY TRIAL FOR NAVAL OFFENCES

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: I should explain to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) that I have not selected Amendment No. 3 which stands in his name—in page 38, line 4, leave out Clause 47—but the substance of that Amendment is covered in the main debate on the Clause, in which it will be in order to discuss new Clause No. 1—Naval offences dealt with summarily.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: As I understand it, Clause 47 is a tidying up operation. We have sought to continue this tidying up operation in the new Clause, the purpose of which is to carry on the good work of rationalising the Services one with another so far as is practicable. Much has been done over a wide front in the Ministry of Defence over some years. The former Secretary of State for War, who did some of this work, knows a great

deal about what was done. During our period of office, we continued this work and in many respects—victualling and furnishings, to name only two—we rationalise the Services one with another to save expenditure.
The discipline of a ceiling expenditure concentrates the mind wonderfully with a view to seeing what can be done to rationalise one Service with another so as to save money.
As regards discipline, there are respectable precedents for rationalising. The last Select Committee in 1962 suggested that henceforward when questions of discipline came before the House and the various pieces of legislation were examined the Naval Discipline Act should be reviewed at the same time as the Acts for the Army and the Air Force.
Page 1 of the present Select Committee's report states that the last Select Committee
also recommended that the Ministry of Defence, with the aim of standardisation, should consider over the next five years what practical advantages and disadvantages stem from the differences in status between the 1955 and 1957 Acts. Clause 1 of the present Bill now seeks to bring the Navy into line with the other Services in this matter by subjecting the Naval Discipline Act to the same procedure for review and renewal as the Army and Air Force Acts.
This is the highly respectable and historical precedent for rationalisation and for bringing the Navy into line with the other Services in regard to discipline as with many other matters where there is a cross-interest between the Services.
The Select Committee went into considerable detail. I pay tribute to our Chairman for guiding us in our proceedings Clause by Clause. As I had not sat on a Select Committee for many years, I found very refreshing the method and speed with which we examined highly detailed matters and traversed a great deal of ground during our 11 sittings.
One major issue which substantially divided the Select Committee was whether the Navy's existing summary powers should continue. Paragraph 8 of the report sets out the differences, in that the Navy can still deal summarily with all ratings for any offence other than the very few remaining offences punishable by death and can award up to three months imprisonment, detention or dismissal or derating, although most of these


punishments require the approval of the flag officer.
In the Army and the Air Force commanding officers can deal with a somewhat lower range of offences and the maximum punishment they can award is 28 days detention. That is the basic difference between the Navy and the other two Services, and the Navy has possessed these substantially greater powers for a long time.
I sympathised with the main argument which was canvassed by the Navy for the retention of these substantially greater powers. The Navy much more frequently than the other two Services operated in distant waters far from immediate administrative support and the whole paraphernalia of courts martial and references to high authority, and it was necessary in the interests of discipline to cut corners—I do not put that offensively; perhaps I should say that it was necessary to deal speedily with matters arising within the jurisdiction of a commanding officer on a vessel which might be hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from administrative support.
By tradition the Royal Navy is a highly mobile force. In those circumstances, it was said that the Royal Navy's powers were necessary, and it wanted to retain them. I understand the reasoning behind the argument, but from time to time the other Services, too, though perhaps not on the same scale as the Royal Navy, have to operate without recourse to the administrative support which was regarded by the Royal Navy as the main reason for wanting these powers. There was no evidence before the Select Committee that, because the Navy's activities were far-flung, these increased powers were necessary.
Bearing that in mind, the Select Committee examined with great care—I apologise to my colleagues on the Committee for the length of my cross-examination, but I was anxious to probe the matter in depth—the Navy's case for the retention of its increased powers.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The right hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "increased". I think that he means "different". I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the

Committee by suggesting that the Navy is asking for increased powers.

Mr. Morris: I apologise to the Committee. I had no intention of making a false point. I was seeking to say that the power required by the Navy was in excess of that possessed by the other two Services. There was no claim by the Royal Navy that its powers should be increased. I apologise if that was the impression that I gave.
The Navy's case is based on the fact that its activities are far-flung, and that it often operates outside immediate administrative support but, when one examines the facts, one finds that only 45 per cent. of the Royal Navy is at sea. The majority of Royal Navy personnel are serving at shore establishments, and no case can be made for saying that that component of the Royal Navy is outside the range of immediate administrative support. What is more, of that 45 per cent. at sea, I am not sure what percentage would be regarded as being outside immediate administrative support. That percentage would include vessels in ports, and vessels in home waters, so perhaps only a small proportion of that 45 per cent. could really be said to be outside immediate administrative support.
That is the compass of the Navy's case for being singled out to be given powers in excess of those possessed by the other two Services. A minority of the Royal Navy is outside immediate administrative support, and for this small proportion it is considered necessary for the Navy to be given powers in excess of those exercised by the other two Services.
The new Clause is sensible. I could have introduced a new Clause to bring the Royal Navy completely into line with the other two Services and let it deal with whatever problems arise in the same way as they are dealt with by the other two Services when they find themselves outside the range of immediate administrative support. We know from the evidence that we heard that personnel of the other Services often go on missions which put them outside immediate administrative support, but they are able to deal with any problems that arise, without any apparent difficulty.
But I have not sought to bring the Royal Navy completely into line with the other two Services. I have not sought to take an unreasonable attitude. What I have sought to do is to bring the Royal Navy generally into line with the other two Services, and to leave it to the Defence Council to decide when extra powers are needed. That power is given to the Defence Council so that while, in general, the Royal Navy will be in line with the other two Services, in circumstances in which the Defence Council, in its wisdom, considers that extra powers requested by the Royal Navy are necessary, it can authorise the use of those powers by means of a simple administrative order. The commanding officer can be authorised to use the powers which have been requested.
Most of the arguments that have been raised against my proposal arise from my having taken a reasonable attitude. If I had suggested bringing the Royal Navy into line with the other two services in all respects, none of the arguments which have been canvassed would arise, because they all stem from administrative difficulties. Anyone who has served in the Ministry of Defence knows that there are administrative difficulties to be overcome in achieving most objectives, and that at the end of the day the Ministry of Defence is more willing than any other Department to ensure that the difficulties are surmounted and to deal with the problems that arise.
What are the administrative difficulties? It is said, first, that there would be two systems of discipline for sailors. It is said that they would not know where they stood, that they would not know whether they could be dealt with by the commanding officer, or not. It is said that some sailors in a garrison town would be regarded as capable of being dealt with by the commanding officer, while others would not, and that if two sets of sailors were involved in a fracas, some could be dealt with by the commanding officer, and some could not.
I am aware of that difficulty, but a similar problem arises and is overcome when Royal Marines go on board ships of the Royal Navy. They are then subject to the discipline of the Royal Navy, and no difficulty seems to arise from the fact that Royal Marines are subject to one discipline when they are on shore,

and another when they are on the high seas.
The difficulty envisaged in dealing with sailors who are subject to two sets of discipline is, in certain circumstances, paralleled in civil life. Two persons, be they sailors, soldiers or civilians, can be dealt with in different ways. This situation arises nearly every day in the courts. If two people are charged with an offence that can be dealt with summarily, one may elect to be tried by a jury—which he is entitled to do in a number of circumstances—with the result that the other person, who may wish to be tried by the magistrates, nevertheless has to be tried at sessions. If a difficulty arises here, I am sure that if two sailors could be dealt with by different systems of discipline, it would not be beyond the wit of their lawyers and the Secretary of State to cope with this situation. If, today, in a garrison town, a soldier and sailor are joined in a charge after a fracas, the soldier can be dealt with by a court-martial and the sailor by his commanding officer. So the administrative difficulties have been exaggerated.
4.30 p.m.
One of the arguments against the amendment is that one is seeking to reduce the disparity between seagoing sailors and those ashore, but there is a policy of further aligning the Services, and these arguments cancel out. The weakest argument put forward by the Navy is that it would greatly increase the administrative burden, in that there would be a much greater number of courts-martial. An increase has been prophesied of from 60 to 500, but there has been no evidence for this mathematical projection. In 1970, the total number for the Army was a mere 1,900, so the total of 500 is difficult to accept.
My Amendment would give rise to only a portion of that, because the Royal Navy would not be put on a par with the other two Services. If the other two Services find a need for courts-martial, the fact that courts-martial would arise in the Navy for similar offences is not in itself an argument against a common system.
I was concerned at the policy of sentencing in the Armed Services and I called for papers and statistics. I am


grateful to those who spent a great deal of time preparing the evidence for our consideration. I was concerned that the number of sentences in the 28- to 90-days' bracket was much higher in every category of offence.
It was suggested to the Committee that desertion was sui generis in the Royal Navy perhaps more than in the other Services. But the same trend was borne out in the other offences, in that there were many more sentences in the Navy in this bracket. In the Navy, the total of sentences up to 90 days for desertion was 47, in the Army it was three and in the Royal Air Force it was one. So the sheer numbers cause a great deal of concern.
Although my Amendment was not acceptable to the Committee, it was this underlying concern which resulted in the Committee carrying the very important Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell). The report said:
Your Committee also consider that the whole purpose of Service detention and its implementation should be examined in view of the changed conditions in both modern Service life and the civilian environment.
That was only one of the reasons why some of us voted for the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment.
It might be argued that the figures for the other Forces are higher than for the Royal Navy for sentencing over 90 days, but the increased numbers, having regard to the sheer size of the other two Services, cannot be moved sideways. Because a naval commanding officer uses his powers to the extent that there are overwhelmingly larger numbers being sentenced to 90 days and under, the numbers in the other two Forces do not bear out the fear that the Navy is treating its men more leniently.
If this were true, it could be proved statistically. I challenged one of the witnesses to assist the Committee on this, to ascertain whether this moving of the figures to the right could be explained in statistical terms. So far, no evidence has been forthcoming on this. I wish that it were: it would relieve me of a great deal of anxiety.
From the offences set out here, one can see that the naval commanding officers enjoying these greater powers inflict a

far greater number of these punishments and this is not compensated for by the higher punishments imposed by the other two Services.
In the course of the proceedings, we considered whether the powers enjoyed by the Royal Navy might be extended to the other two Services. We had the advantage of the assistance of the Vice-Judge Advocate General, speaking on behalf of the Navy. It is germane to consider the attitude of the other two Armed Services, as represented by their witnesses, about what would happen if the powers enjoyed by the Navy were given to the other two Services.
In paragraph 722, the Vice-Judge Advocate General said:
The Judge Advocate General does not want to express an opinion of his own as to whether any such increase in powers of punishment is needed because he thinks that that is a question of policy for the Services and for this Committee, but he would wish to emphasise—the point has been made to some extent, but the Judge Advocate General wishes it to be voiced in his name—that if it were decided that there should be any significant increase in the powers of punishment of the Army and the Royal Air Force commanding officers, it would be indispensable to introduce adequate measures to safeguard the interests of the accused persons. The Judge Advocate General considers that those measures would have to cover the procedure to be followed by commanding officers when dealing with cases—such questions as whether the accused should be represented or advised—and whether some sort of formal record of the evidence should be kept which would be capable of scrutiny afterwards. There would have to be a proper provision as to procedure at that stage.
Further, the Judge Advocate General considers that adequate facilities for reviewing cases after trial and possibly providing facilities for petitions or appeals would have to be considered. He suggests that it would be unacceptable simply to increase the powers of commanding officers without considering in detail the interests of those who would be brought within their net. Those are all matters which would require pretty careful consideration.
At question 776 I asked:
Would the Judge Advocate General be satisfied to have for the Army the same kind of arrangements to look after the interests of the accused as exist in the Navy?
Dog does not eat dog. I received the answer:
I would hesitate to say anything in this room which would appear to be critical of the arrangements which exist in the Navy, but what the Judge Advocate General is uneasy about is that, so far as he understands the naval system, there does not appear to be any provision whereby the evidence which is


taken at summary hearings is recorded. He apprehends that there must be difficulty in knowing afterwards what has gone on and in conducting any review to cover the merits of the case.
I asked:
Where does he lay the greatest stress—on recording the evidence or on ensuring that the accused is adequately protected and given the right legal advice?
I was told:
I think that he thinks that both are desirable.
At question 778 I asked:
As I understand it, the Judge Advocate General would not be satisfied if the arrangements which exist in the Navy, without criticising the Navy's arrangements, were to be introduced in the Army?
The answer was:
I do not think he would be very happy about it.
That was the Judge Advocate General replying to questions from me during the hearing of the Committee. His answers were disquieting because, while he was obviously anxious not to tread on anybody's toes, it is clear that, although in the context of another Service, he would not want this sort of thing introduced into the Army. Indeed, I submit that it is out of the mouth of the Judge Advocate General and his representative that the Navy stands convicted in its desire to retain these extraordinary powers.
The defence offered by the Navy for the retention of this system has been the same over the years. On this occasion Vice-Admiral Wildish said, in answer to question 735:
We must come back to the nature of our Service, which is very much more of a separated Service. Men who are separated from their families and homes are much more likely to come under some form of sentencing policy".
The last argument seems to be that, because the Navy is somewhat different from the other two Services, it needs these extraordinary powers of sentencing.
This type of argument has been traditional over the centuries. It has been adduced in the past by those who wanted to retain the status quo for sentencing, punishment and discipline in the Armed Forces. I will not weary the Committee by going over the utterances made through the centuries by Service people who have wanted to maintain the status quo.
Consider, for example, those who campaigned for the retention of flogging. Lord Palmerston, when Secretary of State for War—and he was Secretary of State for a very long time indeed—said in 1815 in defence of flogging that foreign soldiers serving in the British Army retreated more readily than British troops. Although they were as liable to be flogged as British soldiers, Portuguese and other foreign Service men were flogged less often because, in the view of Lord Palmerston, the English—I am pleased, being a Welshman, that he specifically referred to the English—like all soldiers from northern lands, were more likely to get drunk than men from southern nations and were, therefore, more liable to commit offences.
The same argument is being used now, in a different context. Lord Palmerston had not changed his mind by 1827, when he was still Secretary of State for War. He said:
If the infliction of corporal punishment were abolished, it must be followed by the abolition of the Army itself, which, without it, will soon become the most dangerous establishment in the Empire.
On that occasion, as on previous occasions when similar matters had been discussed, Lord Palmerston was accompanied and supported by many distinguished military gentlemen. I will not weary the Committee by naming them all. They all wanted to retain the status quo, including one General Duff, who declared that it was as easy to chain the north wind as to manage British soldiers without the aid of corporal punishment.
The proposal which my hon, Friends are making at this stage is merely designed to bring the Services into line.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: It was with clarity and force that the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) moved the new Clause. Hon. Members who had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee will be familiar with the arguments and background to the controversy over this issue. The liveliness with which the right hon. Gentleman puts these matters is welcome, and his concluding illustrations from history will have been new to the Committee.
I do not propose to detain hon. Members at this stage and I will not, therefore,


attempt to refute or counter in detail the arguments, which the right hon. Gentleman adduced for what he wants to do, which I gather is to bring as nearly as possible into line the code of discipline of the three Services. My noble Friend will no doubt undertake the detailed refutation of that case, if he considers that course to be necessary.
I will only give the background to the Committee's consideration of this issue and make some general observation about my approach to the question, an approach which, in the result, was shared by the majority of the Committee—dividing not, I am glad to say, quite along party lines. The right hon. Member for Aberavon will recall that he put the substance of his case in the form of an amendment to the Chairman's draft report, and this appears on page xviii, but the Committee, by a majority, rejected his view.
This whole controversy about standardisation, both in the disciplinary and other spheres, is not new. As the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying, it started in my time, about 10 years ago, if not before, and it has been going on ever since. One cannot get away from the fact that one's approach to the central controversy depends very much on one's individual cast of mind. That produces two distinct sets of opinions. It is a difference of approach which is not confined to politicians. One is either a standardiser by inclination, an aligner, or a non-aligner, a non-standardiser. The right hon. Gentleman will have found in his time, as I found in mine, that this propensity to be one or the other exists as much among senior members of the Services and civil servants as among politicians.
I tend to be, though not, I hope, as square as some of my predecessors to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, a non-standardiser rather than a standardiser. It does not annoy me that there should be differences and idiosyncrasies peculiar to one or other of the Services. I tend to accept that they exist in a Service but that, if they work and the desired result is obtained, we should not get tremendously fussed about it.
Broadly speaking, the Committee, having given full consideration to the argument, so ably assisted by the right hon. Gentleman's cross-examination, came to the conclusion that the existing code of discipline, by and large, works for the Royal Navy and is justified by the rather different conditions in which it has to operate. While there is force in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments—taken one by one, they are not easy to counter—none the less the Committee felt that it worked and did not want to come down on the Royal Navy or on my hon. Friend's Department by recommending that there should be further changes.
In inclining to this view I had the following consideration at the back of my mind. The Select Committee procedure is comparatively new. I think that this is the third Select Committee on the Army Act and on the other Acts. In some ways it is a help to the Services to have a five-yearly opportunity to revise their legislation and to bring improvements before the House for consideration. In some ways this is an advantage which other Departments of State do not share. It is quite different in some other spheres where Ministers who want to bring forward legislation cannot get a foot in the legislative door because there is always a queue of business waiting to come before the House. The Service Departments, under this procedure, get a five-yearly chance as of right.
There may be a disadvantage accompanying this opportunity in that a Select Committee, meeting every five years, may almost feel obliged to make recommendations before the next Select Committee is formed. In that way it is possible to build up a rolling impetus towards change for the sake of change. That could operate to the disadvantage of the Services. It is not a bad thing to do what this year's Select Commitee did, namely, to say, "Let us stand back for a moment and consider whether all these changes are necessarily to the benefit of the Services themselves." We said to the Ministry of Defence, "We do not want to put pressure on you to go in for more changes and particularly more standardisation for the sake of standardisation." We may have been right or wrong. This,


at any rate, was the majority view of the Committee.
That is really all that I wanted to say. However, as a postscript, I should refer to two matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. He was perhaps a little misleading—quite unintentionally, I am sure—in his reference to the amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) which was accepted by the Committee. That amendment arose from the visits paid by the Committee to the two detention establishments at Portsmouth and Colchester, on which I do not intend to comment at length.
Having seen those establishments and discussed various points arising from those visits, to an active mind accustomed to Service affairs, like that of my hon. and gallant Friend, a basic question which cannot fail to arise is: "What is all this about; what is the basic purpose of detention and punishment in relation to Service discipline?" Until one has answered that question, many of the subsidiary questions which arise can be misleading. In proposing the amendment, I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend did not think that it would give rise to any change; nor was he wanting to generate any particular pressure for change. He was asking a fundamental question about the underlying philosophy of discipline in the Services. I think that it was more in that spirit than the way indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Morris: I certainly should not dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the motive of his hon. and gallant Friend in moving the amendment. But he will remember that there was no great discussion about this matter. It was done almost at the end of the meeting when we had considered the whole of these factors and deliberated on all the amendments. This was one consideration which was well in my mind and in the minds of some of my hon. Friends when we voted for it. It was a great pleasure to us that the amendment was carried.

Mr. Ramsden: I accept that. It cropped up, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right at the end. Some Members of the Committee may have put different interpretations on it from others. I am

not prepared to argue about that. It is a pity that my hon. and gallant Friend is unable to be here this afternoon.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave a bit too much weight to the evidence of the Judge Advocate General. As a gloss on his speech, anybody who is interested ought to read with care the evidence of the commanding officers and the directors of personnel services of the three Services. I say this not out of any desire to be offensive, but because the right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and Judge Advocates General are members of that cloth, too. I think that in these matters we should be guided by the layman as well as by the professional experts. On the whole, I am sure that it will be no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman to hear that I am against his argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist it.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I did not support my right hon. Friend when the new Clause was moved in Committee. I have not changed my mind, despite a powerful speech by my right hon. Friend, who has put forward every possible argument for the new Clause.
I hope that I do not come in the category which he has been reading out. I am not the kind of person who expects that discipline can be imposed only by having a man strung from the yardarm every morning before breakfast. However, I am against change merely for the sake of change.
I have been honoured to serve on the Committee. It has been a most interesting Committee and all Members have sought to do what they thought best for the Armed Forces. There has been disagreement within the parties on different matters, and on a Bill of this nature that is how it should be.
5.0 p.m.
We have been given statistics which I shall not go into in support of my argument, because I believe that one can make them come to any conclusion one wishes. I am more concerned with what I feel are the realities of life in the Services. I want first to deal with the suggestion that there might be a double system in the Navy—for situations where the commanding officer has these powers and for situations where he does not. I


think that that is a non-starter. It would cause confusion. My right hon. Friend mentioned that soldiers are subject to naval discipline when serving on board ships, but that is something which is quite clear to them. It is not imposed upon them without their knowing that they are going to be subject to that sort of discipline. It would be most unfortunate if a person serving in the Navy did not know from one day to the other what code of conduct he would come under.
I accept the argument—I have heard nothing to disprove it—that the type of service in the Navy in many instances makes it most difficult to impose discipline in the same way as in the other Services. Ships are away for long periods on their own. It is claimed that it is easy to get the man to a court-martial, and, of course, it is. But the question arises of how many other people from the same ship might have to go to the court-martial. That is one of the important factors which we must bear in mind. It is not just a question of transferring a prisoner to where he can have his court-martial but of how many other people from the same ship might be required as witnesses. I can foresee grave difficulties if the commanding officer of a ship could give only up to 28 days.
The new Clause might not be in the best interests of the man himself. Many men would prefer their commanding officer to deal out the sentence, knowing the maximum he can give, rather than find themselves sent to court-martial where they might get a more severe sentence. My right hon. Friend, who is in the legal profession, knows that quite often a magistrates' court concludes that a six-months' sentence of imprisonment is not sufficient, and may have in mind a sentence of, say, 12 months. But the magistrates cannot give such a sentence and must send the man to a higher court, which may pass a sentience of two or three years' imprisonment. In the magistrates' court, however, the man would probably have got away with 12 months. I am not saying that this sort of thing would happen in the Navy under the new Clause, but these are practical possibilities. It may well be that in the Navy there are men who receive sentences of from one to three months from their commanding

officers but who would receive longer sentences at court-martial. I appreciate that in the Navy there are different circumstances. In the Army, people are detached for various periods. It is much easier for the Army to get people to a court-martial than for the Navy.
I have heard no argument which would convince me that this change would be administratively better, I have heard no argument which would convince me that it would be better for the man concerned. I began by saying that I do not believe in change merely for the sake of change and, although I hope eventually to see these Acts as a whole brought together, I am not satisfied that the new Clause is a reasonable suggestion to put forward at present, and I will not be able to support it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who has given us interesting illustrations of his knowledge of the practical aspects of Service life. I cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in his enthusiasm for rationalising. The new Clause seems to be either part of an attempt to diminish the disciplinary powers of the commanding officers of ships or an attempt to bring naval discipline into line more exactly with that of the other two Services, or both. I resist it on both these grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the very clear enunciation of Appendix 1 of the Select Committee's report. When this matter came up in the Committee, a supplementary memorandum submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State said—and this is quoted on page 139 of the report—
It would not be acceptable to operate different disciplinary systems afloat and ashore for the following reasons:
It then gave six valid reasons which I shall not now repeat. I do not think that it is true to say that the only reasons given were those of administrative difficulty. There is a much more important threat in this argument right through the proceedings of the Committee.
Right throughout this matter, I have made the fundamental point that the three Services are very different organisations. I am not looking backwards to flogging—I do not think that that was


the right sort of emotive phrase to bring into the quieter proceedings we are engaged in. Nor am I resisting a combined Ministry. Obviously, a combined Ministry makes good administrative and operational sense. But each Service must keep its own identity. Field-Marshal Montgomery said that the British Army is essentially a tribal organisation, and the same is true of the other two Services in their own ways.
I believe that the Bill must not be allowed to be used as an excuse for trying to merge the Forces little by little, as I fear the right hon. Gentleman appears to want to do, into one characterless whole. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister, from the global viewpoint in the Ministry to pooh-pooh the differences between the Services, but to a young recruit who has earned his badge to sew on his sleeve and who engages in the little rivalries with the other arms within his own Service, that is his horizon. We would dismiss these small differences at that sort of level at our peril.

Mr. John Morris: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to do me a disservice by misinterpreting my views. I would be the last person to want to reduce the Armed Forces to one colourless whole. In my military career—short and undistinguished compared with his service—I had the privilege of belonging to a distinguished regiment of infantry, and the pride with which we wore the flash on our shoulder straps and the hackle on our hats was drummed into new recruits, just as we impressed upon them that in 1917 we had the honour of refusing to become the Welsh Guards, preferring to remain the Royal Welch Fusiliers, which is also a matter of great pride.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman has now made the case against his own suggestion that the disciplinary systems should be merged. He first gave no good reason for it and has now given an illustration from the Army against it. In the Navy, officers and ratings live together in the same ship in very close company and in different conditions from those prevailing even in distinguished regiments ashore. They share the same bad weather, the same good weather. They know one another and live, as the term says, as a "ship's

company" and an excellent term it is. They have loyalties to their ships and healthy rivalries with other ships in the same squadron, which are to be encouraged. These ratings do not want any disciplinary matters which may have arisen in their ship dealt with by outsiders, even outsiders from within the same Service.
The report of the Select Committee on page viii has a key sentence. It says:
Your Committee do not wish to recommend the expenditure of further time and effort in an attempt to achieve standardisation for standardisation's sake. On the evidence they have received, your Committee are satisfied that the powers at present exercised by naval commanding officers are suited to the needs of that Service and should not be reduced.
That seems to be an absolutely unequivocal statement.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon, in his remarks about sentencing was not comparing like with like. In dealing with the investigation of offences in ships at sea and the recording of investigations, he was, similarly, not comparing like with like. It is more important to be quick, while the memory of what happened is fresh in the minds of witnesses and everyone concerned with the case. It is more important that it should be dealt with quickly than with formality, with tape recorders, notebooks and all the rest of it.
With a small ship heaving round in a seaway the more formal proceedings of a court martial are entirely inappropriate. To sum up, the conditions are not the same between the three Services, and it is therefore no good trying to reconcile their disciplinary conditions. The last sentence of the report sets the tone for what we should be discussing and the way we should proceed. It says:
Your Committee therefore emphasise that in preparing the next Bill the Ministry of Defence should have only one object in mind: the best interests of the Services themselves.
With the utmost respect to you, Madam Deputy Chairman, I end by saying that on the quarter deck, as in the boudoir, I am a great believer in the old saying vive la difference.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is always a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I wish to support the amendment. On page


xviii of the report it will be seen that I voted against the recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should give early consideration to substituting for the next quinquennial review a common Act applicable to all three Services. I did that for two reasons. One was that I was the first one who had to register a vote and did not know whether to say "aye" or "no". [Interruption.] I am perfectly honest.
The other point was that there was a second paragraph and it was that which, to me at that moment, was much more important. This is the way I think the Services will develop and we must take this steadily. I should not like to think that we have to rush the Ministry of Defence into doing this within the next five years. I see it as something which will happen in any case—I see the rear-admiral fighting a rearguard action.
I was interested in the point raised about the powers of commanding officers in the Royal Navy being over and above those of commanding officers in the Army and Air Force. I do not know whether times have changed, but I can remember that my commanding officer in the Army could give only 28 days detention or send one for court-martial. Alternatively, one could opt for a court-martial. I can remember that on the two or three occasions when the C.O. asked me, "Will you accept my punishment?" I practically grabbed it, because I did not want a court-martial, whether or not I was guilty. What happens in the Royal Navy? Are those dealt with summarily given the chance of a court-martial? It is only too clear that the Amendment will not be accepted, but it is good to give the point an airing and to give the senior Service a warning that in time we will have the Services under a common Act.

5.15 p.m.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), supported by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has stated the case for the Amendment clearly. I should like to support the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). The gist of the right hon. Member's case was that on the whole, summary naval punishments are much more severe than their

Army equivalent. He mentioned the four reasons we gave in the report. We said that we thought it unsuitable to have two systems of law in the Navy. This was because it was not in the interests of the Navy, secondly because the choice of summary punishment or court-martial might depend not so much on the gravity of the offence as upon where the accused was serving—whether at sea or ashore. Thirdly, there was a disparity, which we did not want to encourage, between shore and sea service; and, fourthly, we said that there was the administrative load to consider.
I believe it goes a good deal further than this. Conditions in the Royal Navy are a good deal different from the other two Services. The one essential for all three Services is that justice must be fair, impartial and rapid. The naval system has been tried and proved effective over a long time. We would have received complaints from constituents if this were not so. We fall over backwards to give accused people a fair trial.
I know that it is not intentional, but I very much deprecate the impression that is given that we are trying to reduce the powers of senior officers in the Royal Navy because we do not feel that they are impartial or fair. There is the same sort of feeling of mistrust in the Army. Take my own regiment, where the commanding officer of a regiment of Chieftain tanks has £5 million worth of tanks in his charge but has a limit of write-off of £25.
On 12th November in another place the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had this to say on this subject:
I think it will be accepted by everybody who knows this subject that the system of administering justice in the Royal Navy has stood the test of time, is well understood by all in the Navy, and, most important of all, meets seafaring operating requirements by being both swift and economical. I am glad to say that there have been very few criticisms of Naval justice, either from within the Service or from the judges. The Army and R.A.F. system is no less suited to the environment in which these Services live and operate, and it is equally well understood and accepted by their personnel. We must never lose sight of the fact that the disciplinary systems of the Services must be grounded in the operational and environmental needs of each particular Service.
So far as the Royal Navy is concerned, it is self-evident that forces afloat must have


some means of dealing quickly with breaches of discipline. It is, in our judgment, still right that there should still continue to be two disciplinary systems: that of the Army and Royal Air Force, which gives the commanding officers a relatively modest power of punishment, and that of the Royal Navy, which gives commanding officers greater powers of punishment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 12th November, 1970; Vol. 312, c. 807–8.]
It would be wrong to differentiate between sea and land service and would cause anomalies which were mentioned in the evidence and contained in the report. It would be unpardonable to increase the number of courts-martial. The figures quoted for courts-martial show that there are of the order of 60 in a year. It was suggested that this figure might rise to 500, and such an increase would be unforgivable.
The Committee took evidence from four commanding officers, namely a captain of the Royal Navy, a group-captain station commander in the Royal Air Force and two lieutenant-colonels, one a marine commando and one who commanded an artillery regiment. We asked them their views on their powers of punishment. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force accepted the adequacy of their powers, whereas the Army and particularly the commando commanders asked for increased powers in respect of detention and fines. This was not from any point of view of vindictiveness, since one of the chief reasons was to try to avoid courts-martial.

Mr. John Morris: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to mislead the Committee, but he would be the first to concede that this was the particular opinion of two Army commanding officers. He will remember that the Director-General of Personnel for the Army in his evidence, gave a contrary view and mentioned a poll which had been taken of hundreds of Army officers.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The two officers concerned, one a marine and the other a solider, said that 100 officers had been asked and that 70 per cent. had asked for increased powers.

Mr. John Morris: No.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: If I am wrong I stand corrected, since I see the right hon. Member for Aberavon

has the Committee's report before him, whereas I have not. I am saying that the accused are safeguarded. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) raised the point about the Royal Navy.

Mr. Ramsden: It may have been the other way round. I do not think the intervention of the right hon. Member for Aberavon was altogether relevant, because the question to which he referred was asked in a rather different context from that of discipline to which my hon. and gallant Friend was referring.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: As I was saying, there are safeguards, and the more serious punishments in the Royal Navy have to obtain the approval of a flag officer. Leading ratings and above have the option in more serious offences of electing for trial by court-martial. In the same way, in the Army or Air Force any punishment that affects a man's pay—and detention automatically incurs forfeiture of pay—means that the man has the option of a trial by court-martial. This, of course, applies to more serious offences.
I will outline to the Committee what happens when a case goes before a court-martial. A summary of evidence has to be taken which involves the taking down of all the evidence of prosecution witnesses in the presence of the accused. This summary of evidence is then forwarded through the normal channels to the legal authorities who give advice on the charge and say whether the evidence so produced is sufficient to prove the case. That evidence then comes back and a court is convened. This process alone can take from between four to six weeks. The court when convened probably contains three officers, other than those belonging to the accused's unit. It also contains a prosecuting officer and a defending officer.
After the case has been heard the proceedings are sent again to higher authority for confirmation. The whole of this procedure involves delay and means a great deal of entirely unproductive work over and above the normal day's routine. Furthermore, a court-martial causes publicity which in many cases brings stigma upon the unit or a ship and therefore courts-martial are resorted to only when all else has failed. Commanding officers do not send men to detention just for the


love of doing so. A man sent to detention probably remains on a unit's strength or establishment. This means that this penalises the good soldiers in the unit who behave themselves, because it means that they will have to do the miscreant's work for him while he is away. I feel that for these and other reasons it would be wrong to try to standardise procedure. Therefore, the Royal Navy should be allowed to retain its present system.

Mr. Wellbeloved: One of the difficulties in these debates is that normally, apart from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), we seldom hear the authentic voice of the "other ranks". We always have the benefit of speeches by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) who served with distinction as an admiral in the Royal Navy, and we are now joined by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who served as a distinguished major-general, and by hordes of other ex-officers.
Whenever we hear the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester talk about officers and ratings living together in the ship, we have a wonderful picture of them all tucking in on the same mess deck and all living a nice, comfortable, cosy life. But the real facts are that the officers live in the wardroom, very often with a cabin each, while the ordinary seaman on the lower decks messes with a large number of his colleagues and comrades in cramped conditions, often finding his sleeping quarters in the best way he can. The paternalistic idea put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester is absolute rubbish when measured against the reality of actual service in the Royal Navy. The next time we set up a Select Committee on the Armed Forces we should see to it that its members should go round and discuss the application of the discipline Acts with Service men rather than with officers. Those are the men to whom the discipline Acts are applied, yet we never hear the authentic voice of the ordinary Service man in our debates.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said that he was against

the amendment because he was not a standardiser and did not believe in uniformity throughout the whole of the Services. I share his view. We do not want uniformity and standardisation to be pursued merely for their own sake. However, the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon in moving the Amendment was not based purely and simply on a desire for uniformity, but on the basis of seeking justice for Service men in the Royal Navy. He mentioned the evidence given by the Judge Advocate General in which the judge made it clear that neither he nor his Department would wish to see the same loose form of summary justice in the Royal Navy applied to the other two Services. What my right hon. Friend is seeking, and he has my support, is a more just system of disciplinary code applied to the Royal Navy.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is this loose procedure relevant only in regard to the 28 days to three-month sentence? Does not this same loose procedure take place in a unit where the officer can award up to 28 days and where there are no committal procedures?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The graver the offence the more formal should be the proceedings. One of our objections to the Royal Navy disciplinary system is that the proceedings on board ship when trial is taking place before a commanding officer are not up to the standard which, according to the evidence of the Judge Advocate General, they should be and, in his view, those same standards would not be acceptable to the other two Services.
I turn to the Naval Discipline Act and the powers of commanding officers in the operation of those provisions. It is not without significance that when one looks at the number of men who reengage in the three respective arms of our Services one sees that the Royal Navy has the lowest percentage of re-engagement. I do not suggest that that low percentage after a period of nine years is due wholly to the application of what can only be described as an unfair disciplinary system, but I suggest that it is a contributory factor. The fact that the Royal Navy can induce only just over a third of Service men to re-engage, as against 50 per cent. in the Army and nearly 60 per cent. of men in the Royal Air Force,


should be a factor to cause the Ministry of Defence to look at the disciplinary code in the Navy to see whether it is having any effect on this percentage of re-engagement.
My right hon. Friend referred to the evidence given to the Committee about the sea/shore ratio and went on to develop the argument that because only 45 per cent. of the Navy is at sea—and only a small percentage of that 45 per cent. is beyond the range of administrative support—therefore he suggested we should have a dual system as suggested in the amendment. Since he was trying to be fair to the Navy, I feel that he illustrated a weakness in his own code. I hope that when eventually we consider bringing a greater degree of justice into the Navy, we will not adopt entirely my right hon. Friend's proposals since it would be difficult to operate two systems in the Navy. On the point about the small number involved—and I take a different stand from my right hon. Friend in regard to the sea/ shore ratio—the Ministry's figure in the White Paper make the sea/shore ratio much less than 45 per cent. They make it about a third. So the problem is probably easier to deal with than my right hon. Friend suggests: a smaller number of people are at sea, and the required range of administrative support is less than my right hon. Friend thought.
In five years' time, when we consider these matters again, it may be that the Admiralty will be more enlightened and more receptive to the idea of bringing its disciplinary systems into line with those of the other two Services.
We have been told that, because of the vast improvements that have been made and because ships now operate with advanced machinery and very complicated systems, many of the old traditions of the Navy have had to go. Rum has disappeared, much as I disagreed with my right hon. and hon. Friends about it. Now it is rumoured that duty-free tobacco is to go. It seems that the Admiralty is prepared to see all the old traditions which made up the "perks" for the lower deck swept away, but that it will fight to the death to preserve an outdated and unjustifiable disciplinary code. If it maintains that the "perks" must go, it must in turn introduce a system of summary justice which is comparable in all respects with those of the other two

Services. For those reasons, I support my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Ramsdell: May I apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)? He said that 70 out of 100 commanding officers would prefer to have their powers increased. Some members of the Committee did not trust their recollection of the report and thought that my hon. and gallant Friend had the figures the wrong way round. However, he was quite right, and his recollection is confirmed by paragraph 10 of the report, which refers to Question 793 in the evidence to the Committee.

Mr. John Morris: May I add a similar apology? It was my recollection too, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had expressed the proportions in the reverse order. That was also the recollection of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). It is amazing how three members of the Committee thought that the record was quite different. Who is right, I am not sure. However, the record confirms the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Lambton: As this will be my only opportunity to address the Committee, perhaps I might begin by stressing the very constructive nature of the report, practically every part of which has been accepted by the Government. The Committee set out to do constructive work, and it succeeded. It is no exaggeration to say that very good results have flown from its work.
I want also to assure the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) that, even if I advise against the acceptance of his amendment, I have listened carefully to everything that he said and his arguments will be considered before the next review. The same goes for all the arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides.
It would be wrong not to express from the Front Bench on behalf of the Committee our thanks to the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), for the way in which he conducted our meetings. From this side, we must express our gratitude to the right hon. Member for Aberavon for the way in which he led his side of the Committee in our debates.


What was very refreshing about some of our meetings was the cross-voting which resulted. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), at any rate agrees with my right hon. and hon. Friends today. That is a rarity which is always refreshing in politics.
I come, then, to the effect of the Amendment and the proposed new Clause. It would be to reduce the powers of naval commanders to the same level as those in the Army and the R.A.F. At the same time, it would give the Defence Council the power by regulation to restore the present naval powers in whole or in part to appropriate categories of naval commanding officers.
The Amendment is based on the argument that, though the captains of distant naval ships require the present powers, they are not necessary for the captains of ships operating closer to administrative support or for the captains of fleet establishments ashore.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon made a powerful speech in moving this Amendment. I understand entirely his motivation. However, there are a number of major arguments against accepting it.
It is not possible to distinguish in the way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes between different categories of ships. Some ships are detached from the rest of the fleet. In such cases, any reduction of commanding officers' powers would be difficult to operate. Equally, there are a few naval vessels which do not very often go far from their home ports. If one looks carefully at the disposition of the ships of the fleet, however, it becomes clear that few of them falls into these two extreme categories. The pattern of activity of most ships of the fleet is much more varied and is liable to be changed at very short notice as ships are redeployed to take account of changing operational and other requirements.
Perhaps most important of all is the point that almost every ship in commission has to be ready at short notice to proceed on duties which may involve its being well beyond the range of immediate administrative support, although normally it would be within its reach. At the same time, although fewer ships are now

in far distant waters than was formerly the case, this has not altered the fact that the fleet has to be highly mobile and ready to accept immediate changes of plan.
5.45 p.m.
My second argument relates to the suggestion that it is possible to have two disciplinary procedures in the navy, one for the seagoing fleet or some part of it—and again it is possible that some confusion might arise here—and the other for naval establishments ashore. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I can see very serious objections to any arrangements which would place the members of a single Service under two disciplinary procedures. I listened with interest to the right hon. Gentleman's comparison when he referred to someone in civilian life committing some crime and finding himself shuttlecocked from one court of justice to another. However, that is not a relevant comparison. When a man joins a Service, he expects to be in that Service under one disciplinary system.
I ask the Committee to listen to some of the following difficulties that it would cause. From the point of view of men in the Navy, there is a great deal to be said for a single disciplinary system. If there were more than one, men might find themselves passing from one system to the other without being certain which one they were under at the time. Secondly, under two systems, a man would be tried summarily or by court martial depending on whether he was serving ashore or afloat rather than depending on the seriousness of his offence. Thirdly, a difficulty would arise in the case of an absentee or deserter. Once his ship sailed, he would have to be tried under the disciplinary system operating ashore, whereas members of the same ship's company who had sailed with the ship would be dealt with under a different system for what probably were less serious offences. At the same time, there is no doubt that two systems of discipline would complicate administration both in the fleet and at headquarters.
My views contradict the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members opposite. We have been told that the Amendment would not impose too great a strain upon the disciplinary


system of the Navy. If men were court-martialled instead of receiving summary justice, there would be a large number of cases for court-martial requiring evidence to be brought ashore from those at sea. That would create considerable inconvenience to ships which might require all their men at effective stations.
It is important to stress the considerable differences between naval life and Army and Air Force life. When men come ashore after a period of sea, they are subject to a great deal more small temptations than men serving in the Army and the Air Force. Very often, therefore, summary justice and the imposition of slight sentences fits the crimes far better than hawking men back for court-martial.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the safeguards of men who are tried summarily at sea. The supplementary memorandum submitted to the Committee, which is to be found in Appendix 22 on page 175, describes
… the safeguards, standards of practice and judicial procedures which are observed when a naval rating is tried summarily.
It goes on to say that the procedures are governed by Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy. It is clear that men have considerable safeguards, and I draw special attention to paragraph (h) which says:
For more serious offences, leading ratings and above may have the right to be tried by court-martial (equivalent to general court-martial in the other two Services). They are told of this right by the Commanding Officer at the end of the investigation and then have 24 hours in which to decide whether to opt for trial by court-martial or summarily.
I might add that the great majority of those who have had this opportunity to opt for trial by court-martial have not taken it up. That suggests that the men themselves are not as dissatisfied with the system as has been suggested.
The Armed Forces have been subject to great changes in the last few years. This process has not yet been completed, and I do not think that we should add to these problems when there is no evidence that it would be of advantage to the Service.
For all these reasons—and I hope reassurances—I urge the House to reject the amendment and leave the Clause in its present form.

Mr. John Morris: Since there will not be an opportunity on Third Reading, may I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee, and particularly the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) for guiding our proceedings; the staff of the Defence Department, led by the Head of the Service Discipline Acts Review Division; Parliamentary Counsel; and the Officers of the House, who gave an incredible amount of assistance to the Committee. There was from time to time robust cross-examination from all members of the Committee, and the witnesses were very patient throughout the proceedings.
The Committee examined carefully, Clause by Clause, many matters which caused concern to us, the concept of active service, some of the punishments, and some of the offences. It was obvious to us that there had been a great deal of give and take from each of the Services in turn, and this obviously will go on.
My suggestion that there should be a common Act for the three Services was rejected by the Committee. However, I am sure that with the effluxion of time, in due course, maybe before the next quinquennial review, a common Act will be brought before the House.
One of the matters that was acceptable to the Committee, which perhaps will do more than any other to bring about comparison between one Service and another, was the Committee's view that the Secretary of State for Defence should consider whether the legal departments of each Service should become a common service.
The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) expressed disquiet in the Amendment he moved in the Committee, on the place of punishment, the purposes, and the methods and powers. It is obvious to us all, deliberating as we are on the system of discipline in the Armed Forces, that a punishment which involves restriction of a man's liberty is a waste of resources, whether of the Armed Forces or in civilian life. Therefore, when we look at the purpose of punishment it is important all the time to consider whether our methods of punishment and the means we use to decide upon sentencing are the best possible, and whether they meet the views of sentencing in the 1970s as opposed to the 1870s.
I think that it was the right hon. Member for Harrogate who suggested that I placed too much emphasis on the views of the Vice Judge Advocate General, and that he preferred that of the commanding officers. As I understood it, the Vice Judge Advocate General gave the considered view of his part of the Army Department that he would not wish the powers enjoyed by the Royal Navy commanding officers to be extended to all the other Forces without a large number of safeguards for the personnel involved. That in itself, whether the Committee accepts my views or not, is worthy of examination, is cause for concern, and should be examined by the Secretary of State for Defence with some care in the next five years.
I quoted earlier the figures which we had for the analysis of punishments meted out for different classes of offence. In the division between 28 and 90 days, they were 47 for the Navy, three for the Army and one for the Royal Air Force, and the pattern remains for all the other offences. Having regard to the numbers involved in the Navy, and even on absolute terms, the figures are out of proportion. This matter, too, needs, full examination in the Defence Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) did not support me on this matter in Committee. He argued contrariwise, but he has done so on previous occasions in defence matters. He saw administrative difficulties, and pointed out that even in civil courts the majority of people preferred to be tried summarily. A shorter maximum sentence is always attractive to someone in difficulty, but my hon. Friend knows probably better than I that the conviction rate is rather different when one elects to be tried in a higher court. That is one of the counter-attractions. Whilst he argued against my Amendments, my hon. Friend wants the Acts brought completely together in clue course. I took it that he was against sin, but not now.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said that I wished to reduce the Forces to one colourless whole. I dealt with that in my intervention. I am very conscious of the traditions of each of the Armed Forces. That is why I sought to introduce my Clause in what I thought was a reason-

able way, not bringing the Royal Navy into line with the other Services without providing excepting provisions.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that all our observations in Committee and during the debate will be considered before the next review. He was very kind to us in his observations during the whole proceedings.
In view of the arguments on the administrative difficulty of introducing a two-tier system for the Royal Navy, I am encouraged the next time we discuss the matter not to provide any excepting provisions, but perhaps to bring the Royal Navy straightforwardly into line with the other two Armed Services—and let that be a lesson to those who oppose me now.
The argument has been interesting. As the Minister has told us that all the matters raised will be considered before the next Review, as I am confident that there will be more rationalisation of the Navy with the other two Armed Forces in due course, and as it may well be that in the next Review the objects I have in mind will be achieved, and the Government of the day will introduce something not unlike what I have suggested now, I do not press my new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS ARISING FROM PART II OF THIS ACT

Mr. Lambton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4. in page 63, leave out lines 11 to 14.
I think that it would be convenient to take with it Government Amendment No. 5.
These Amendments are consequential on our decision not to extend to the Army and R.A.F. the offence of behaving with contempt to a superior officer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 5, in page 63, leave out lines 17 to 19.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, as amended; as amended, considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — WATER RESOURCES BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

SUPPLEMENTAL

6.0 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'section' to second 'at' in line 5 and insert:
Which—
(i) authorises the making of discharges of water'.
If it would be convenient to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may we discuss Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 2?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House, unless there is any objection, to discuss, with Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 9, after '1949', insert:
', or
(ii) specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded,'.

Mr. Page: The House will remember that Clause 1 (1) of the Bill authorised the Secretary of State to make an order authorising the discharge of water into any inland waterway or underground strata, and that that kind of order is not, by the Bill, subject to any Parliamentary procedure, unless it relates to a national park or to an area of outstanding natural beauty. If it does so relate, then, by Clause 2(4)(a) it can come

before Parliament on a Prayer that it be annulled. I said "if it relates to a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty"; that is to say, where water is taken from or discharged into such a park or area. As printed in the Bill now before the House, the paragraph was not wholly free from doubt. It was agreed on both sides of the Committee that there was no intention to apply the negative procedure in Parliament solely because the water originated far, far away in some national park or area of outstanding natural beauty, but that we wanted to cover the case where the point of discharge of the water was in the park or that kind of area, or the point of abstraction or impounding of the water was in the national park or the area of outstanding natural beauty.
Both points would have to be stated in the order, that is to say, in the order made by the Secretary of State. He would have to set out the point of discharge and the point from where the water was being abstracted before in due course being discharged.
In saying that, I call attention to paragraph (2)(b) and (c) of the Schedule, which sets out what should be in the notice and, therefore, in the draft order which comes before the Minister. So we shall be able to see, from the draft order, the point of discharge and the point from which water is abstracted which is eventually discharged.
In the main, we shall be dealing with reservoirs in connection with these orders, and if the reservoir is in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, no matter where the discharge is, discharging inside or outside a park, the negative procedure will apply to that order. Also, if the reservoir is outside the national park or the area of outstanding natural beauty and the discharge is inside, the negative procedure will apply, if the Amendments are accepted.
To make clear what the Amendments would do, perhaps I may read them into subsection (4) of the Clause, so that we can see that it covers the points that I have been trying to make. If the Amendments are accepted, subsection (4) would read as follows:
The power to make orders conferred by the preceding section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and—
(a) a statutory instrument containing an order under that section which—(i)


authorises the making of discharges of water at a place which, on the date when the order is made, is within a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty within the meaning of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or (ii) specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded,
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That covers the desire shown on both sides of the Committee to make certain that there were no ambiguities about the Clause and that the House would have an opportunity of debating those occasions when the discharge order affects national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether this is quite fair. At the Committee stage he said:
I should like to consider whether, if the affirmative procedure were given under subsection (4) in these cases relating to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, one might have to define the cases a little more narrowly so that the trivial cases … would have to be excluded so that we only dealt with the cases, such as my right hon. Friend has mentioned, on which one might expect that there would be a Prayer."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th March 1971; c. 84.]
If my hon. Friend is to accept Amendment No. 4, I quite understand that this is consistent with the undertaking given during the Committee stage, but as he has not yet put his name to the Amendment I am, rather naturally, a little suspicious.
The wording which we are now seeking to change was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in another place when he, in response to pressure, gave this particular concession regarding the Statutory Instrument with the negative provisions. Some of us, for reasons which I shall talk about on a later Amendment, regarded that particular procedure at present as inappropriate.
If my hon. Friend will not agree to the affirmative procedure, these Amendments are not necessary and are contrary to the undertaking that he gave. There was no general agreement on the Committee that the wording proposed in the other place was insufficient. The wording that my hon. Friend has chosen to-

day might bring a certain amount of confusion into the matter, because whereas the Schedule and the original Clause talks about when water is "taken", he has now introduced the phrase "abstracted at a place." Presumably, to be terminologically correct, it would be abstracted "from a place." My hon. Friend should be satisfied, if he means to restrict this to the negative procedure, with the wording his colleague introduced in the other place. If it is a minor matter there will never be a Prayer. There will be a Prayer only when there is considerable feeling about a river authoity's proposal.
I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that he is not going contrary to the statement he made in Committee on 30th March when he limited any idea of changing the wording of the Clause to a change from the negative to the affirmative procedure. It goes too far to say that the Committee agreed to that change. It agreed to the change conditional on the change in procedure.

Mr. Denis Howell: Unlike the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I wish to express my appreciation of the action the Minister has taken to meet what I thought was the consensus of the Standing Committee. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will recall that the words originally were
water taken wholly or partly at a place
The argument advanced on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and on behalf of the water industry and of local authorities was that there could be a case where water originated in Wales or in some other place of outstanding beauty but because a reservoir had been built in Manchester, Bristol or some other place at a spot where there was no outstanding beauty to be taken into account, under the terms of the Bill as originally drafted the Clause would apply a restriction to those operations, not because that was the point of outstanding natural beauty, but because the water originated elsewhere.
That was clearly unsatisfactory. In Committee the Minister undertook to consider the point. The form of wording produced in the Amendments vastly improves the Bill and gives great satisfaction to the water industry and local


authorities. These Amendments will have the support of this side of the House.

Mr. Graham Page: May I, by leave of the House, reply to this short debate? My recollection of the date about the ambiguities or anomalies in the Clause is the same as that of the hon. Member, for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). We wanted to exclude cases where water originated at some considerable distance and to concentrate on matters affecting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I think that we now have the wording right. It is correct to use "at". That word was used in the original Clause. We wish to concentrate on the point where the abstraction is made.
I said in Committee that it might be necessary, particularly if we were changing the form of parliamentary procedure, to distinguish between the trivial cases and the more serious cases. It has not been possible to make that distinction. It remains possible under the Bill for a Prayer to be laid against even the most trivial case, and that could be debated under the negative procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 3, in page 3, line 9, after '1949' insert;', or
(ii) specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded,'.—[Mr. Graham Page,]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 9, leave out from 'shall' to 'House' in line 10 and insert:
'not come into effect unless it has been laid before Parliament and approved by each'.
In Committee we had a wide-ranging debate on this point and my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider whether we could not make a change from the negative to the affirmative procedure. Great advantages would flow if we were able to make that change, particularly in view of what is happening to Prayers in the House of Commons.
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments considered this matter and made this statement in paragraph 14 of its recent Report:
Your Committee do not consider that the present practice of the House regarding instru-

ments subject to negative procedure and general instruments is satisfactory. Until fairly recent sessions, it was the practice of the House that time was found for a debate in the House on all Motions praying that statutory instruments be annulled; if for any reason time could not be found within the 40 days praying time, it was the convention that time would be found for a Motion in similar terms to be debated (these Motions are called 'out-of-time Prayers').
Captain Crookshank, when he was Leader of the House, stated:
I guarantee that every time a Prayer is put down if I cannot arrange a debate within the 40 days I arrange for an 'out-of-time' Prayer outside the 40 days.
The Special Report continues in this way:
In recent sessions the practice of the House has changed. It is now not uncommon for Prayers to remain undebated either 'in time' or 'out of time'.
The position has become increasingly serious. In Session 1967–68, out of the 57 notices given, only 21 were debated within the 40-day period. In the following Session 48 notices were given; 31, or over half, were debated within the period of 40 days. I am told that in succeeding Sessions the position has got even worse.
The aim of both sides of this House and of the other place is that when a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty is involved in a reservoir scheme there should be an opportunity for a debate to be held in both Houses if Members so wish. The present Leader of the House made this statement when giving evidence recently before a Select Committee:
Where an Opposition expressed a desire for particular Prayers, my experience was that when I asked for them they were nearly always granted.
But for private Members he agreed:
There is a real problem here, that the issues raised in negative Orders do not have opportunity for debate.
Clearly it will be most unsatisfactory it, there being a demand by others than the Opposition for a debate on matters concerning national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, there is no scope for a debate in the House on the Prayer.
The position in the House of Lords is peculiar. The rules of orders for Prayers are different from those here, and I feel sure that one reason which may be making my hon. Friend more obdurate


than usual is his view of some of the ramifications of the special procedure in the other place. Except for Prayers on local government boundaries, no Prayers have been debated in the other place for the last five years. The other place does not have any Standing Orders procedure for Prayers. The only occasion that I can find of a debate on a Prayer was on one relating to local government boundary revision.
We are faced here with a great difficulty. I appreciate the difficulty raised by Standing Order No. 216 of the other place, under which there is a system for Petitions against Affirmative Resolutions. I appreciate the difficulty, which undoubtedly faces my hon. Friend, that that might involve the employment of counsel and having something like a repetition of the Private Bill procedure which hon. Members do not want to see again, because it is an expensive procedure and often a lengthy one, but we should, in this debate, ask for an assurance, either from my hon. Friend, or from the Leader of the House that, when a Prayer is put down against a proposal for a reservoir to be built in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, time will be found for a debate on the Floor of the House, and not merely if the request for a debate is backed by the Opposition.
It may be that the Prayer will be on a matter on which the Opposition do not feel strongly, but on which there is strong feeling throughout the country. To give an example, it may be that the Opposition of the day would not have wished to put down a Prayer on the Swinicombe Reservoir in Dartmoor, but certainly a mass of objectors wanted that Prayer to be debated. Equally, the question of Farndale was not one with which the two Front Benches were concerned, but a mass of people who want to conserve the beauty of the country felt very strongly about it.
It is clear from what my hon. Friend said on the previous Amendment that he is not friendly to this Amendment, but I hope he will assure me that if we stick to the negative procedure and do not adopt my Amendment and have the affirmative procedure, he will arrange that if a Prayer is put down, time will be found to debate it in this House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: When the Father of the House puts forward the kind of Amendment that we have before us, it behoves us to look at it very carefully, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, and his reasons for putting forward the Amendment, but I suggest that there is an important principle which he did not mention, which is the distinction between the affirmative and the negative procedure.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we have the affirmative procedure, it appears to me that we are being asked to agree to something that is special. We are being asked to look at it, but if we have the negative procedure, it is a check on something that is normal.
As I understand it, one of the purposes of the Bill is to transfer some of the complex arguments that there are on this kind of question away from this Palace to a locality where people can find it more convenient to attend, and where wider topics can be mentioned in a slightly less formal atmosphere. Then Members of this House or of the other place can, if they wish, put down a Prayer as a check. To do it the other way round would require affirmative procedure to be followed every time, which would result in complicated discussions akin to those we have at the moment.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the procedure in the other place. I think that I should perhaps quote from the current edition of Erskine May, which outlines the procedure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman because, where there is a Petition, the Special Orders Committee can go further. Erskine May says on page 571:
Where such a further inquiry is recommended the Select Committee consists of five Lords named by the Committee of Selection and conducts its proceedings as if it were dealing with a Private Bill.
In other words, we are back to the sort of procedure which I feel sure most hon. Members wish to avoid.
It is for those two reasons that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, whose views I respect for many reasons. I do not think that we should accept the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Denis Howell: I endorse the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). In every way it


is not appropriate to have the affirmative Resolution procedure in respect of these Bills, but I have some sympathy with the case made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I think that the Minister is faced with a dilemma, because he is not responsible for the procedures of the House or its timetable. Nor is he responsible for providing opportunities for hon. Members to debate Prayers.
I ought to make it clear that I have no authority from the Opposition benches to talk about procedural matters and time-tabling, but it would be wrong not to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has a point of some substance when he says that if hon. Members wish to pray against an order they should have the opportunity to do so, whether the order is within the time scale or not, and the interesting references made by the right hon. Gentleman to the remarks of the late Captain Crookshank are extremely relevant.
The Minister cannot be expected to take on board responsibility for this matter as laid down in the Amendment. His job is to find the right answer to whether we have the affirmative or the negative procedure. The Minister cannot be expected to go further than that, but I join the right hon. Gentleman in asking him to take the matter up with his colleagues, and particularly the Leader of the House, to see whether we can solve the dilemma which the right hon. Gentleman has so fairly expressed.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As I said on the previous Amendment, normally orders under the Bill will have no Parliamentary procedure at all. But if they relate to areas of outstanding natural beauty or national parks, the Bill provides for the negative procedure. The Amendment would substitute the affirmative procedure for those orders affecting national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. It would then be necessary for the Government to find time for a debate on that order, otherwise the order would not be effective.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that he thought that I was unfriendly to his Amendment. I am unfriendly to it in a purely parliamentary respect. I have great sympathy for his point. The whole

purpose of accepting in another place what is now in Clause 2(4) of the Bill, the negative procedure for those orders, was to ensure the possibility of debate of those orders in both Houses or in one House as Members might choose.
We cannot, under present procedure in this House, ensure that, if an order is subject to the negative procedure, it will be debated or will even have the opportunity of being debated in this House. That occurs by a combination of the law that the negative procedure applies for a period of 40 sitting days after the order is laid and our rule of procedure that Prayers shall not continue after 11.30 at night.
We could ensure by the affirmative procedure that the order would be debated in this House, but in another place the affirmative procedure sets on foot processes which are very similar to Private Bill processes. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to relieve the parties concerned from any such process. The House of Lords Private Business Standing Order No. 216 provides that any orders which come before that House for affirmative resolution can be referred to the Special Orders Committee in that House, before which Petitions can be made and heard in exactly the same way as if that were a Private Bill Committee.
This is what we hope to avoid under the Bill. If we have the affirmative procedure applied in another place, we are back to square one. The Bill will have served no useful purpose in removing the expensive and long procedure of a Private Bill Committee.
My right hon. Friend asked whether I could give an assurance that, if the negative procedure remains applicable to these orders, there will be the opportunity of debating a Prayer in this House. Of course, I cannot give that, because I might be giving an assurance that the whole procedure of the House would be disrupted by an enormous number of Prayers being tabled.

Mr. Turton: Are there to be a great number of reservoirs in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Mr. Page: I was not necessarily referring only to such orders. As the figures which my right hon. Friend read out showed, there are no reservoir orders on the Order Paper at the moment, but the


House was unable to take all the prayers. It merely boils down to this: the rules of the House will operate all right so long as one plays the game, but if one tries to disrupt the rules it is a very easy thing to do. If one puts many prayers on the Order Paper, it is impossible for any Government or any Leader of the House or any usual channels to promise that every prayer will be debated. So I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance.
But I am sure that our debates on this subject have highlighted the position and shown particularly the concern of this House for these orders; if Prayers are laid against any order of this sort, I am sure that any Government or Leader of the House will give great consideration to them.
This does not mean that I hope that there will always be opposition to reservoirs just because they are in national parks or areas of great natural beauty. When properly planned, located and landscaped, reservoirs can greatly enhance the beauties of the parks and these areas and can make a great contribution to the happiness of the people by providing a most enjoyable form of recreation. It is a positive policy of this Government that the natural beauties of our country shall be available to the people. That involves not mere conservation but improvements as well, and reservoirs can be improvements.
It is right that, on any occasion when a Member wants to bring a subject before the House, it should be brought before the House. I hope that the words which have been spoken from both Front Benches and back benches on this Amendment, both now and in Committee, will convince any Leader of the House that these are the sort of orders for which he must make time available for debate. I cannot give any undertakings about it: I can only express my very strong hope that any Leader of the House will do that in future.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule

ORDERS AUTHORISING DISCHARGE OF WATER

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 27,

leave out 'twenty-eight days' and insert 'six weeks'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'that period' and insert:
'a period of fifty-six days beginning with the date of the first publication of the notice';
and Government Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Mr. Page: Paragraph 1 requires the authority which is asking for an order to submit a draft order to the Secretary of State and to give notice that it has done so in one or more newspapers circulating in each locality. In paragraph 2 there is set out a list of what shall be included in that notice. Paragraph (e) says that the notice shall
specify a place in the river authority area where a copy of the draft order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonble times during the period of
—it says "twenty-eight days"—
beginning with the date of the first publication of the notice;
Paragraph (f) says that the notice must
state that any person may within that period, by notice in writing to the Minister, object to the making of the order".
So taking those two paragraphs together, there is a period of 28 days for the objections to be made after the notice has been published.
The Amendment would increase that period to six weeks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) had an Amendment down in Committee extending the period to two months. There is some precedent for the period of 28 days in the Water Resources Act, 1963, but there is also a precedent for a period of six weeks in planning law on notices very similar to those set out in this Schedule. Not entirely by way of compromise, but by way of giving way to my right hon. Friend's powerful arguments on this point, I decided that it would be right to have regard to the time which is familiar to those concerned with planning law, six weeks, within which to object, and therefore to substitute here six weeks for 28 days.
We must strike a balance between giving objectors time in which to learn


of a draft order and to make their objections known and having the sort of delays which might result if we allowed too long a time for objections.
One will embark on this procedure because the conservation of water is needed in some areas very badly or because the transfer of water from one area to another should take place This is done for the good of the community and nobody will embark on this procedure unless the matter is of some urgency
We must, therefore, balance legitimate private interests against the public good. Because, in planning law, the time of six weeks is known as a reasonable period for objections, we have chosen it in the Amendment. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential on Amendment No. 5.

Mr. Turton: I am obliged to the Minister for this concession. I agree that six weeks is better than the period originally suggested. Considering the remoteness of some national parks and reservoir areas, it is not always easy to ensure that all concerned are made aware of proposals of this kind, particularly as the postal service has not improved lately.

Mr. Denis Howell: It was on this point that, as a result of advice given to me by the water industry, I pressed an Amendment in Committee. I, too, wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for the change he has made in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in line 35 after "situated", insert:

(b) every navigation authority, harbour authority and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to any inland water into which any of the proposed discharges may be made;
(c) all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to absaract water from any inland water or underground stratum at places at which it appears to the authority that the flow, level or quality of the water may be affected by any of the proposed discharges;

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for hon. Members to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 8, in line 35 after "situated", insert:

(b) any statutory water undertaking having the right to abstract water from the inland water or underground strata in which the flow level or quality of water may be affected by any of the proposed discharges;

Mr. Page: The Schedule points out in paragraph (1) that a notice must be published in the newspapers about a draft order submitted to the Minister. A copy of that notice must be served on certain bodies, and they are described in paragraph (3) of the Schedule. In (3)(a) it must be served on
every local authority within whose area any discharge point is situated.
In paragraph (3)(b) it must be served on
every person who has given notice to the river authority requesting them to notify him of applications by the authority or orders under section 1 of this Act
In Committee we discussed whether these requirements were sufficient and it was suggested that other bodies, such as navigation, harbour and conservation authorities, should have an automatic statutory right to a notice. I have in Amendment No. 7 endeavoured to provide for a statutory notice to be given to such bodies, and the Amendment refers to
every navigation authority, harbour authority and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to any inland water into which any of the proposed discharges may be made.
The Amendment goes on in its second provision to refer to
all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to abstract water from any inland water or underground stratum at places at which it appears to the authority that the flow, level or quality of the water may be affected by any of the proposed discharges.
6.45 p.m.
It is in connection with the words "appearing to the river authority" that Amendment No. 7 differs from Amendment No. 8, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), for if we were to set out specifically that this notice shall be served on certain authorities whose functions do certain things or who may be affecting certain inland waters, it is possible that the river authority's opinion might be different from a court's opinion as to what authorities are included within that category.
I have deliberately left it in my Amendment to the opinion of the river authority as to what authorities may be


the right authorities to serve with a notice. I do so because I want to avoid the danger of the whole proceedings being invalidated by a court later saying, "This particular authority had functions which related to the inland water with which you were dealing and you should have served a notice on that authority." In that event, we would have to start all over again.
I do not think it likely that a river authority will go wrong on this. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in relying on the opinion of the river authority as to which of these kinds of authorities described in the Amendment should be served with a notice. This is certainly imposing on them a greater duty than would have been the case under the Bill as originally drafted, but I believe this to be the right course, having regard to the points made by hon. Members, and particularly by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), in Committee.

Mr. Turton: I am not as happy with this Amendment as I was with the last, mainly because of the words "appearing to the river authority". In a recent case a large reservoir was proposed and the local water authority learned that one of its abstraction points would be inundated by it only after the Bill—in that case it was a private Measure—had got some way forward. I regret that this point has not been more clearly defined.
Is it not possible for the Minister to make the position absolutely clear by instructing river authorities that they must notify all statutory undertakers in whose areas a discharge point is located and from which water is to be abstracted? I am sure that a clearer form of words could be found. Indeed, I would have thought that the wording in my Amendment would avoid mistakes being made.
Will my hon. Friend give the matter further thought? The Bill has yet to go to another place. Between now and then he might be able to find a form of words which will be somewhat more binding than those in Amendment No. 7. However, I am grateful for the way in which he has met the remarks that were made in Committee by myself and a number of hon. Members. We pressed him for proper notification and we are bound to

be disappointed at the weak type of language used in the Amendment.
I do not understand why the Minister insists on talking about "stratum". What is wrong with "strata"? This is new terminology to me. Water is usually found in strata and not a stratum. If my hon. Friend wishes to be pedantic, that is up to him and I will complain no further. I ask the Minister to look again at the words "appearing to the river authority". It might mean a rather recalcitrant river authority making the same mistake as in the past of not notifying the statutory water undertaker early on, and that makes it very awkward.

Mr. Spearing: I confess that yet again I have some sympathy with the point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). At the same time, I can see that the Minister wishes to guard against a complicated scheme being held up by a relatively small point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting the sense of the Amendment which stood in my name in Committee and incorporating it in paragraph (b) of the Amendment before us.
This matter primarily concerns navigation, harbour and conservancy authorities. These authorities will be concerned more often than not, if not always, with tidal waters. It was to protect their conservancy function regarding their waters that the Amendment was originally made. Where a natural inland river discharges into a tidal river, creek or estuary, the quality of the water being discharged is of great significance to the harbour or conservancy authority concerned.
I concede that in this case, with the discharges which we have in mind, the quality and quantity of the water, for which there is already statutory provision, may be increased and that, rather than cause these harbour or conservancy authorities any great trouble, it is probable that any increased discharge will make their problem a little easier. Nevertheless, it is right that they should automatically get a notification of changes in discharge. They will then have a forward-looking picture. We all know that the Bill, in relation to another piece of possible legislation in the next year or two, may change the structure of water movement throughout the country because rivers will be used more for


transfer of water from one place to another rather than pipelines.
I am grateful to the Minister for having incorporated these safeguards in his Amendment. However, I understand the caveat which he has put in, which is the only difference between this Amendment and the one I originally moved in Committee.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) properly expresses his appreciation to the Government for ensuring that when a river authority applies for an order under the Bill, navigation, harbour and conservancy authorities get proper notification.
The Minister will recall that my concern in Committee related to statutory water undertakers, as did that of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I know that the statutory water undertakers will be grateful for the extent to which the Minister has met their point. They are now written into the Bill and have the right to see any such notifications.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that when we look at the words which the Minister has found to meet our point, at first sight it seems surprising that this right is limited by the unfettered discretion of the river authority. I listened to the Minister with interest and I appreciated the dilemma in which he found himself about having these matters determined by the courts. If this is thought to be a matter of difficulty, then he has made the best of the situation.
The whole matter turns on whether river authorities can be expected to play the game. Whilst there has been the odd case—important, even if odd—where it has not happened, I prefer to think that river authorities are responsible bodies which will always give the statutory water undertakers the requisite notice if they are convinced that they are concerned.
I am sure that if an instance occurs where that does not happen it will be through inadvertence, not deliberate intent, on the part of the appropriate river authority. In any case, the Association of River Authorities, which has from time to time been briefing me and, I imagine, other right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the Committee

stage, is willing to give the appropriate guidance to its members to see that the Amendment is implemented in the spirit as well as in the letter. The long stop is that, if the worst fears of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton are ever proved accurate, the Minister, or his successors, would want to take an early opportunity of expressing a view and having another look at the situation. I do not think that that will happen. I think that the river authorities will notify all the statutory bodies. In that confident belief, I support the Amendment.
As this is the last opportunity we shall get before the Bill goes to Third Reading, I should like to say that this has been a very agreeable Report stage, not least because of the Minister's attitude. On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to express our appreciation.

Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, I should like, first, to deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mallon (Mr. Turton). I think that the singular "stratum" is right, not the plural "strata", when it comes after "inland water". If it had been "inland waters" then "underground strata" would be right. Anyway, everybody seems to know what it means.
Adding these paragraphs to the Clause as it stands will draw the attention of the river authorities to the fact that they must apply their minds to this matter, even if they have to service notice only to authorities which appear to them to be doing something. They must consider whether those authorities appear to be doing it and whether they should serve them with notice. I am confident that the right people will be served with notice by calling attention to it in the Bill.
I am grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). It has been a happy Bill and I think that we have been constructive. Thanks are due to the Opposition, led by the hon. Member for Small Heath, for the way in which they have helped by putting forward constructive points. I hope that we have now got the Bill in a form which will be helpful to all concerned. I am grateful to those who have helped to put it into shape.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 9, in page 5, line 6, after 'to', insert:
'the period of twenty-eight days referred to in'.

No. 10, in page 5, line 7, after second 'to', insert:
'the period of six weeks referred to in'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — AIR TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Air Transport and Travel) Order 1970 (Amendment) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 496) dated 23rd March, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March, be annulled.
There are a number of reasons why I believe that this debate should take place in a period when there is no little anxiety about the future of industrial training. It is unfortunate that the debate has fallen on the day of the borough elections, and that, as a result, the question is being ventilated to a House that is less full than one might expect.
First, there is increasing concern at the blanket opposition by mindless and self-interested individuals, unfortunately reflected in some of the sentiments that have been expressed in this House. Many of us have seen or received stickers entitled "Abolish industrial training boards. Parasitical and Inflationary". I hope that in dealing with some of the schemes and achievements in air travel the Minister will put paid to that sort of nonsense.
Secondly, industrial training has taken a back seat in the House recently, because industrial relations have been at

the centre of the political stage. Thus, when the Government announced, on 5th April, their intention to wind up the Hairdressing and Allied Services Industrial Training Board they did so by means of a written reply, without any explanation.
Thirdly, this order deals with the grant levy system in two industries of growing importance. In the air transport industry the importance of a high level of attainment in training cannot be over-emphasised. Those of us who are laymen, with no technical knowledge, but who have read of a recent near-miss over Heathrow and of the complexity of flight deck operations when taking off from an airport like Heathrow, can be in no doubt of the importance of training in this industry. It is essential that an adequate supply of training vacancies is available to provide enough skilled workers for future needs.
One thing that emerges from the report of the industry is that the age structure of the industry is such that the need for these skills will increase, especially among younger personnel, while, at the same time, men who are capable of learning to do a job should not be permanently excluded from obtaining new skills merely because they happened to miss the opportunity at an early age. The type and quality of training arranged by the Board, and individual schemes which are not detailed in the annual report, will be of interest to the House. I hope that the Minister will say something about them. I also hope that he will be able to say something about the grant/levy set-off dealt with in the order.
Fourthly, it is proposed that travel agents and tour operators should pay a 1 per cent. and not a 2 per cent. levy, but the annual report made it clear that the inclusion of travel agents and tour operators within the scope of the board is an event of so recent occurrence that no real consideration of the training needs has yet been possible, although developments may well have taken place since then. Although establishments of a small type may be left out of many other industrial training schemes—and one appreciates the need for that in respect of other industrial training boards—I am not happy about the 1 per cent., or about the limit of £10,000 in emoluments laid down in the order.
If there is one set of establishments in which training is necessary, not only for the industry but for the protection of the public, it is in this industry, in respect of travel agents. It is an industry in which before dealing with the question of industrial training, I collected a whole dossier of complaints which I submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry. Certainly industrial training in the travel and tour business is the other end of the spectrum of consumer protection for the holidaymaker. I therefore ask the Minister why he considers that a figure of 1 per cent. should apply as against 2 per cent. for the air travel industry.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that these problems are being considered in the context of paragraph 7 of the annual report which says that
The Air Transport and Travel Industry Training Board enters a new decade with an improved capacity to assist the industries which it now serves to meet the training problems of the 1970s.
That should encourage the Minister and the House to persevere in spite of the opposition of those who seem to see red at the very idea of industrial training.
The manpower planning survey demonstrates the need for increasing training facilities for the young, in particular because of the age structure of this industry. Having read the report, I am concerned why the amount of grant for training of fire and rescue staff appears to be so low. There may be an explanation.
I congratulate the board on the manner in which it was able to continue the training of the British Eagle apprentices. That was a great achievement by the board. A great deal can be learned from the international co-operation that has taken place in this respect. It is possible to learn a good deal from foreign experience.
The levy on payroll may well be an example for many other industrial training boards, as with the set-off of grant against levy due. These are two methods by which administrative expense and complexity can be cut down. My hon. Friends and I are as concerned as anybody to cut down administrative costs, but such costs cannot be made the pretext for an assault on the whole concept of industrial training. These two methods may be a key to cutting down the admini-

strative costs of industrial training boards. Here again, I should appreciate an explanation from the Minister of the differential between the 3·8 per cent. for British air carriers and 2 per cent. for the remainder of the industry, while the order recommends the lower level of 1 per cent. for tour operators.
There is no doubt that there is at least as much room for improvement in the training requirements of the travel agencies as compared with the airlines. The percentage should have been at least 2 per cent. in respect of the agents. I understand that that was the unanimous recommendation of the board to the Minister, and that the Minister overruled it. There is nothing in the footnote to the order to convey that impression; in fact, precisely the opposite impression is gained. The Explanatory Note says:
This Order gives effect to proposals submitted by the Air Transport and Travel Industry Training Board".
The Minister, intentionally or otherwise, has misled many of us into believing that this was the view of the board rather than his view. My information is that he overruled the unanimous view of the board.
If my information is correct, when we receive future orders of this kind—and not a few have already passed through my hands this session—I shall no longer be able to accept the Explanatory Note which says that the order gives effect to proposals made by the individual board. I may have to pray against further orders unless it is made clear whether the decision is that of the Minister or of the board.
The overruling of this recommendation by the Minister means that the board has lost its independence of action. It is expected to be a rubber stamp. The Government knew that the board had been overruled and yet they have not told the House. It is only because of information that has come into my possession recently that I am in a position to state with authority that the board was overruled in this way.
The small travel agent, above all, needs more trained personnel and higher standards. Looking at the travel industry, the lack of inspection of overseas hotels, for example, is something that causes a good deal of concern. I have personally run up against some bad experiences


here. One meets couriers quite unable to cope with the problems facing them abroad because they have not been properly trained and are unaware even of the geography of the area they cover. We know of a quarter of a million holiday-makers last year whose travel arrangements had to be rearranged at short notice, a matter of concern for both tour operators and agencies. There is a lack of frankness in public relations on the part of the travel agency industry; there is an amateurish approach by many travel agents and an arbitrary attitude adopted by many operators.
One of the causes for complaint is over the lack of machinery for dealing with complaints—a multitude of them about travel agents and tour operators. I draw here from my own dossier for examples of this. There are many matters which are capable of improvement, quite apart from questions of registration and the rest, which can be helped by industrial training if it is taken seriously by the travel agents and if they will show a willingness to help themselves and their customers to a far greater extent than they have shown in other respects.
In the long term it might well be possible to work out a more equitable costing method to cover all the Board's operations. I do not believe in being dogmatic about these matters with regard to the amount of grant and levy. This is a matter for the board to work out. In the meantime, like members of the board, I see no reason for the differential. Certainly the trade unions concerned are strongly opposed to the growing pressure on the board to reduce and do away with levies even to the extent—and this is happening with regard to this and other boards—that arguments about reducing the cost to employers are beginning to take precedence over the real job of improving industrial training. The Government should recall once more the Prime Minister's speech immediately before the election at Ayr about industrial training.
They should also remember the Act which they set in motion and of which they have every right to be proud. This Act set certain tasks for the training boards and it was entirely endorsed on this side of the House. We want to see a continuing review of training methods

and a cutting down of administrative costs. This is a very different matter from cutting levies merely to appease people in industry and in this case to appease the travel agents whose reputation and whose standing, certainly if my dossier is anything to go by, leaves a good deal to be desired. An enthusiastic response to industrial training by A.B.T.A., for example, would show a welcome change of heart in the industry.
The exemption of smaller firms is even less comprehensible than the question of the levy because whereas smaller firms may well rely on the larger firms to meet their labour requirements or, in the alternative, do their job inadequately, at least the larger travel companies tend, in their own interests, to do a good deal of training. I find the omission of the smaller firms together with the reduction to be two matters which cause me a great deal of concern.
As a consequence, there are thrown on to the airlines duties which are really the duties of the travel agent and for which the travel agent obtains commission. Yet again, the Minister has exempted precisely those groups which need to participate in industrial training, which need to train their employees. As a result of all this, the Minister's actions have denigrated those public-spirited men and women who devote time that they can ill afford to participate in the work of the industrial training boards.
I should like to know when the Minister will say something about the determination of training recommendations in the training industry. There is a serious danger, certainly with this Industrial Training Board, if not generally, of doing what the Government have done to the Commission on Industrial Relations, namely, to force the trade union side out because it will not act as a rubber stamp. How long can people go on trying to increase efficiency and to provide the requisite number of skilled operators for future needs if the Minister capitulates to the pressures of the philistines and of the self-interested?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Dear me.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Member says, "Dear me". I can only suppose that he is among the philistines, those who produce documents of this kind which say


that the industrial training boards should be abolished altogether. I hope that the Minister will not capitulate to that kind of pressure.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I could be at home tonight, but I am interested in industrial training. I was on the Committee on the original Bill. I am also here because I am interested in this business. For the hon. Gentleman to talk in terms of philistinism in relation to travel agents, and the association of British Travel Agents in particular, which is what he has been doing, is the most utter exaggeration. The work that has been done in this area by A.B.T.A. and the whole airline structure, private and national, is, as the hon. Member well knows, considerable.

Mr. Rose: I appreciate the hon. Member's speech but I think he has misunderstood me. If I gave the impression that capitulation to the philistines meant capitulation to A.B.T.A. then I gave the wrong impression. What I was referring to were the people who are putting out this sort of leaflet which I have here, and which is an example of the pressure on the Government to abolish industrial training boards altogether. I am not suggesting that those who participate in this set-up are doing that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that if that was the impression I conveyed, it was not the impression intended.
I draw a sharp distinction between those who, perhaps out of self-interest, wish to cut down the levy they pay—they are perhaps the self-interested—and those to whom I referred as the philistines, who do not accept the need for industrial training. If the hon. Gentleman's intervention has helped me to clarify that, I am grateful to him.
When does the Minister intend to publish the training recommendations? Is he willing to take the risk—and it is a risk—of destroying a board like this by forcing out trade union representatives who cannot accept decisions taken in their name by the Minister? I know there is a strong feeling that they may well take drastic steps if they are treated as a rubber stamp and have no channel through which to express their feelings as to that ultimate decision about the grant and levy system. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully. Is he willing to take such a risk? One of the positive

features of the 1964 Act was the new rôle of the unions in the shaping of training policy and administration. This pressure on employers can be valuable in creating a consciousness of the need for training. There are many employers who see the need for training and one can cite the report of the Engineering Industry Training Board and many similar examples. In regard to the air transport industry, the Minister is putting the corporations at risk.
There are many general matters which could be discused, but I would not wish to stray beyond the terms of the Order. The Government appear reticent over this matter. They have not yet announced a date for a debate on the whole question of the future of industrial training boards, although I asked for such information in a business question some three weeks ago.
It will be the policy of the Opposition, in selective cases, to pray against Orders such as this, as we have done in regard to orders on the Vehicle and Road Haulage Industry Training Board and the Hairdressing and Allied Trades Industry Training Board. We shall pray against such orders when we feel that they raise legitimate matters of concern. This matter is of concern not only to members of the board and of the industry, but also to the House and to the general public.
I hope that the Minister in reply will deal in some detail with the points which I have raised and will say why he thinks it necessary to over-rule the unanimous view of the board on the levy and exemptions.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Since I arrived in this House in June last year, I have watched with interest and care all aspects of Government involvement in industrial training. The smear that is levelled against those of us who oppose Government industrial training that we are against industrial training does not stand up to the test. I have been for 12 years a director of a company whose standard of industrial training has been exemplary and has been so regarded in the particular industry concerned. Therefore, the frequent attacks on those of us who are involved in industrial training that we have no interest in training should be refuted.
I am surprised to find that this Prayer is on the Order Paper, because the Statutory Instrument to which it refers is one of the least offensive of those Orders on industrial training which have been before the House. I am even more surprised that the Prayer should have been tabled by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Black-ley (Mr. Rose), both of whom I consider to be united by a dogmatic zeal to foist on every industry training for the sake of training, irrespective of whether that training is useful, necessary or even helpful.
I have been interested during the past week to contemplate their reasons for wishing to put down this Prayer. Now we know. What has upset hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Cranley Onslow: There is only one there!

Mr. Taylor: Yes, there is only one present. What has upset the Opposition is that the levy has been halved from 2 to 1 per cent., and secondly, that the cut-off figure has been left at £10,000. In other words, they believe the higher the levy the better the training. Similarly, with their philosophy that the higher the taxes the better the country, they believe that the most efficient training methods are those which seek to catch the smallest possible fish in their net. It is interesting to note that the report quoted by the hon. Member for Blackley of the particular training board which is the subject of this Order states that it wrote off £1,000 of levy in the first levy period as not being worth the cost of collection, yet at this time the board was dealing only with civil air transport and was levying 263 companies.
The hon. Gentleman appeared to want the same board to be responsible for levying all the small travel agents. First, the board would have to sort them out, then find them, and would then have to levy them. At the proposed rate of levy in the Order, the maximum amount such a firm would have to pay would be £99. If such a sum were levied at the rate required by the hon. Gentleman, the maximum amount would be £198. Then there would be ail the paraphernalia involved in filling in forms and claiming

back the grant. This would be bureaucracy gone mad.
The Board which is the subject of the Order was formerly the Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board. As such, it must be admitted, it did very useful work, and I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he cited the example of the British Eagle apprentices, which was an excellent result of the board's efforts. The Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board enjoyed the good will of the firms which it was levying, but suddenly on 11th March last year the previous Administration, in a moment of supreme folly decided that travel agents were inefficient and that what was needed was an industry training board to put them in order. What more natural for that Government than to link travel with aeroplanes! Therefore, the name of the training board was changed to the Air Transport and Travel Industry Training Board. As a result a highly successful and technical training board then had to sit down and fathom out a way in which to tell the efficient industry how to become more efficient.
If anybody doubts that this action by the Labour Government was precipitate or was a case of instant government—of which we were warned we should have a great deal—or if anybody doubts that this was a case of acting first and thinking afterwards, I would quote exactly the same paragraph as did the hon. Gentleman from the current report and accounts of the board, paragraph 6 says:
The inclusion of travel agents and tour operators within the scope of the Board is an event of so recent occurrence that no real consideration of the training needs has yet been possible. Much work of an administrative nature will have to be undertaken initially in connection with this extension of scope and concurrently the training position and needs will be surveyed and evaluated.
If that means anything, it means that no survey and no evaluation of whether this industry needed Government interference by way of training took place before that Order was forced on to the industry.
If this levy is approved tonight, at either 2 per cent. or 1 per cent., it will place an immediate obligation on the board to provide training for travel agents and tour operators. Although we have heard from the hon. Gentleman that in his opinion many travel agents are


inefficient, we have not been told what form of training the board should give to make them efficient. It is suggested there should be more inspection of hotels abroad. Nobody could doubt that—but is a training board in this country the way to organise it? What help a training board of this nature could give to a service such as travel agents is to make sure that they run their business with the maximum efficiency at minimum cost and so increase their profits. This is one of the objects of all training boards.
In the case of travel agents, nobody would suggest that a technical skill, such as that in the engineering industry training board is involved. If this is what the training board will set out to do, it will presumably follow the previous pattern of other boards and appoint its own officers to help individual firms. The duty of these training officers must be to bring the most up-to-date methods to each of those establishments to every firm that pays the levy. If the training officer goes to one firm which is extremely efficient and well-managed, he will discover the way in which efficiency has been attained. If he is to do his duty to the other establishments he visits, he must teach them this efficiency. This will be wrong because it would penalise the efficient firm. In a week in which we have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that there is cause for alarm about the leakage of confidential information, it would not be right to approve a situation which envisages more officers going into more businesses to get more information.
I wish to put two questions to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is well known that in Carlisle the State pubs do not pay any levy to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. I am not sure why. Presumably, it was that the previous Government thought that if the State ran them they were run to the maximum efficiency. Will this procedure be continued under this Order with the State travel agents, such as Thomas Cook? Should they not be treated in the same way as other travel agents? If the answer is that Cook's will pay, what is the logic of State travel agents having to pay when State nubs do not? Secondly, in taking the figure of £10,000 as the cut-off figure, beneath which firms do not have obligation to pay levy, I

would ask whether there is included in that figure the salaries of directors of limited companies. If the answer is "No", should we include the salaries of directors of unlimited companies and also the salaries of partners? This is very important, since there has been trouble in other training boards about the compilation of that figure.
I am very glad that the hon. Member for Blackley, who alone remains on the benches opposite, is unlikely to divide the House on this Prayer, because I should find it very difficult to support this Statutory Instrument. It is wrong that travel agents should have this levy inflicted upon them. The board represents an area of industrial training which the Government are jumping into and which they could have escaped, since the board has not really commenced operations. In addition, the board itself would be much happier to be left looking after the civil air transport industry.

Mr. Rose: Then will the hon. Gentleman explain why a member of the board has said that the board unanimously opposed the reduction or exemption of travel agents from the levy but that this was overridden by the Minister? The board does not seem very happy at all.

Mr. Taylor: In my view, the fact that it had such great difficulty in dealing with small firms when it was dealing with only 267 must substantiate that it would have a much more difficult exercise in dealing with the many thousands of small travel firms up and down the country.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall be very brief, mainly because I cannot bear the sight of the solitary figure of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) sitting on the belches opposite in ignominious isolation.

Mr. Rose: I am quite happy.

Mr. Onslow: That may be, but it does not look so good to see the hon. Gentleman as the sole adornment of the benches opposite.
The hon. Gentleman warned us against mindless opposition to training boards. Perhaps I might warn him against mindless support for them. If he thinks that


he has picked the best possible grounds on which to support training boards, he is wrong. If he thinks that the instance that he gave us about the value of training in civil aviation justify the existence of this board, he is wrong again.
It is much to the credit of the board that it was able to come to the rescue of the British Eagle apprentices. However, if he reads the board's report, he will find that the board was able to do it only by accident and quite without planning. It set aside money for group training for which there turned out to be no demand. As a result, it had some £40,000 in the kitty which it had levied and did not require. When British Eagle found itself in difficulty, the board was able to rescue its apprentices with the aid of that money.
When the hon. Gentleman says that it is vital to have a training board for this industry because it is important to have training standards, does he suppose that the importance of training in the civil air transport industry was recognised only when the board was created? Does he suppose that the expenditure on training in the industry has been maximised as a result of the board's creation and that, before it, it was less than the sum levied by the board? He knows that that is not so, and that this is an industry where training is essential to survival. It is one in which innovation is constant. Operators have to keep themselves and their staffs abreast of techniques if they are to survive.
Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that, if it were not for the board, there would not be training over a wide range of specific occupational areas including clerical staff, airline flying instructors, student professional pilots, air traffic control staff, aircraft tradesmen, fire and rescue staff, managers and supervisors, training instructors and air cabin crew, and all the others set out in the Employment and Productivity Gazette for June, 1970? If the hon. Gentleman imagines that these are new areas for systematic training and development schemes, he has wasted our time.
If the board were to move altogether out of the business of civil aviation training and levying, its departure would not be regretted by any of those who at

present are obliged to contribute to this body from their scarce resources, especially when one remembers that the board passes its levies back to refund some of the expense of training which is already undertaken. If any operator is getting less than he pays, it is merely because he has inefficient clerical staff working for him.
Turning to the Order, I want to ask my hon. Friend one or two questions. First, will the sums levied be spent exclusively in the areas in which they are levied? I should hate to think that there was any cross-expenditure going on, because that would be quite wrong. The House might like to know what the estimated yield of a 1 per cent. levy on the air travel industry is expected to be. I do not think that we have been told. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Blackley asked, but the House might like to know. As it is evident that the board does not know how it will use a sum of money which we ourselves do not know, perhaps my hon. Friend can give us some idea of the board's thinking.
It may seem to the users of the industry, the people who book through travel agents and who look forward to this period in the year as the highlight of their experience, that their chances of getting value for money are more likely to be advanced by sticks rather than by carrots. I believe that the Trade Descriptions Act has probably done more to improve value for money in this business than the board is likely to. The bonding scheme amongst travel agents is more likely to provide security than is this board. We are deluding ourselves if we think that the board will make a significant contribution in that direction. This is a highly competitive industry. It may be one in which there is greater need for consumer protection. It may be one in which inefficient operators can find themselves in great financial difficulty. But I do not think it is sufficient to say that if only they had better clerks, telephonists, or whatever it may be, working for them, we should find the prospects of members of the public enjoying their holidays on the Costa Brava substantially improved.
This Order will not get to the root of the problem, and I do not think that there will be a great sigh of lamentation in the land if this board is swept away.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When I look at the benches opposite, I hope, though it is a hope which may not be shared, that everyone has not gone off on a package tour. The absence of hon. Members opposite shows that training has had some effect. Presumably many of our colleagues are out working at the borough elections.
Listening to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), I found myself agreeing with a large part of his speech. However, I disagreed violently with some of his more turbulent and exaggerated language, which I thought that he uttered to make the tabloid Press tomorrow.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that nothing of this debate will appear in the tabloid Press tomorrow, because of the outstanding Labour gains which will be the main subject of the headlines?

Mr. Lewis: We shall see that when it comes.

Mr. Onslow: On the funny pages.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman's party has a great deal of ground to make up to regain what it lost the last time that it went to the country in the borough elections.
I enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor), though I did not agree with his conclusions. If the Government accept the principle of training boards—and, after all, we introduced the Act—they must be in some difficulty in dealing with this training board. No one suggests that we should abolish existing boards. However, we should ask ourselves whether certain people should be allowed not to opt into training. If we have an aviation training board, should it be extended down the line, or confined simply to aviation? I think that, if travel agents were allowed to escape from this training board, the results would be that the one part of the industry which is growing would be outside its scope.
I have to express an interest in this matter. As hon. Members know, I have a travel agency and, in a voluntary capacity, I serve as chairman of one of the

British Travel Association committees. We do not suggest that travel agents should be allowed to opt out. We have met the training board and have expressed the view that we should go in. We were enthusiastic about going in. We even accepted that the small man should go in.
I accept what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley says that it is the decision of the Government that the small man in this case should opt out. In general terms, it is the small man who has caused complications and created the bureaucracies in industrial training. All the difficulties which have been expressed about other training boards have been related to the small people. In this connection, perhaps I may quote from a report by the Small Businesses Association, which has been collecting views on training. It says:
From the outset the Boards functioned for big firms, and the contribution from the small was simply to pay the piper. More recently, most Boards have seen this and have made efforts both to exempt small firms from levy and to allow realistic participation in training schemes.
Clearly the Minister has a problem when he brings a new group into a board. He has to decide how far down he goes. He can always widen the scope of a board later if he feels that it is necessary.
In this case, on balance, I would come down in favour, although the Association of British Travel Agents does not altogether accept my view. There are powerful figures, such as the chairman and the ex-chairman, who have reservations about not bringing in the small man.
I think that it is right to ask my hon. Friend to press on with his inquiry into training boards as a whole and, if possible, to present his findings before the end of the summer. This report will be important to any new board which is advancing as this one is. The sooner that we get the views of the inquiry, the sooner boards will be able to set trends and to provide administration on the right lines. Therefore, I hope that this will be produced in time for the House to have a debate on it, and in time—say, by the autumn—for boards to take account of what the review has said, and to enable the Ministers and the chairmen of the boards together to decide on new patterns for the future.
The criticisms of training boards, made both in the House and by business outside are based on difficulties that undoubtedly exist. It is no good pretending that they do not. The only way in which we shall dissolve these criticisms is if, having got the review, the Minister and the boards take action to improve the situation.
Two questions are important in this connection. First, does the grant system give the necessary quantity and quality of training? This can be answered only when we have the results of the inquiry. Second, is the money going in the right proportion to the varying skills—management right down the line? I ask that question of all boards.
The question which arises on this Order is one of who trains—whether it should be just the big boys or the big and medium boys, or whether it is right that the Minister has chosen to miss out the smaller agencies. The big companies have always trained—for example, the airlines have to train because their business is vast and they need the skills. The small man also trains, because he trains on the job. In this business, as in others, the smaller man who trains one man alongside him probably gives him a better training than we would receive on one of the courses provided by whatever college or training board schemes are available to him.
The big operator trains, and the very small man trains. The man in the middle, running a modest, medium-sized business, is the man that probably misses out most of all, because he depends on his staff to train those below and the staff are not so interested as he is.
The Minister has chosen to miss out all who have a payroll of less than £10,000. It might be useful to look at this, because £10,000 is a comparatively small payroll. The Minister, it will be proved at the end of the day, will catch through the Order every town with about 100,000 population, because travel agencies in towns of about 100,000 population will have a staff that runs to a payroll of more than £10,000. There are the manager, three clerks, two typists and a bookkeeper; their wage bill is £10,000 or more. It all depends on whether the proprietor himself, who depends partly on salary and partly on profit, is included

on the payroll. Even if he is not, it is clear that any modest-sized business is paying on that kind of payroll.
Below that amount—and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West made the point which I had noted from the report—the administrative costs of collection are greater than the money collected. The point made in the training board's report was that a £1,000 collection is too small, and only £100 would be collected at lower level if all travel agencies are included.
I believe it is a good thing in the long run that there should be an extension of training in this field. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Blackley that the industry—and here I took down his words—is "arbitrary" in the way it deals with the public, and has a lack of machinery for complaints. There is a perfectly good machinery for complaints. Both the Association of Travel Agents, and almost all the big operators, have their own machinery for complaints. The business has provided the British public in recent years with opportunities to home holidays that were available only to the very rich, to millionaires, almost, before the war.
It has been a fast-growing industry. Of course, it has had its troubles. There have been difficulties for the public because of these troubles, but they have been infinitesimal in comparison with the happiness provided by the growth of travel. The good holidays are obviously greater in number than the bad ones. This business needs to provide the public with a good service. It is seeking to do so. It believes in training, provides ideas in training and has had courses for many years. I support the Order because I think it will bring about some measure of advance in training within the industry.

7.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): Before trying to answer the case put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), I should like to say something about the problem of the small firm in the training board system. Unless we understand the general problem it is impossible to get the position of the industry and its Board into perspective. That was clearly recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).
A few weeks ago a decorator employing about half-a-dozen men complained to me that he was getting nothing from the Construction Industry Training Board in return for the levy he was paying. His staff consisted of half-a-dozen mature, well-trained men who had been with him for years. His labour turnover was negligible. He had a high reputation in the district for the quality of his work, and was never short of work. He had no need for the courses produced by the board, and anyway he could not spare a man to attend them. He had no time to fill in all the papers submitted to him by the board. He claimed that his own training system had clearly been proved adequate by the results, and that no elaborate records were required. That instance personifies one of the big problems the training boards are constantly up against.
The definition of a small firm varies from industry to industry. The problem presents itself in 27 different ways to the 27 different training boards. No general definition can apply generally. But the overall picture is that those grants and services that small firms can receive from the boards do not seem to offer a reasonable return on the levy paid. The boards are well aware of these problems, recognise how difficult they are to solve, and try very hard to solve them.
A number have introduced special grant schemes for small firms, providing services specially geared to their needs. Some have successfully encouraged the development of group training schemes where firms co-operate in organising their training with skilled advice. But even where training boards have been able to provide special services to small firms, many of them have recognised that they cannot offer enough to the very smallest. Even before we started our review many of them had already decided to exempt the smallest firms from levy. Sometimes now some of the small firms are given services without paying a levy at all. The Engineering Training Board does that. It finds it cheaper to do it that way rather than to spend a great deal of money collecting small levies, so expensive is it to collect levies from thousands of firms. Some boards allow exempted firms to opt into grant and training schemes on payment of a minimum levy. However, despite all the ingenuity shown by the boards to meet the problems of the small

firm, the fact remains that, with encouragement from my Department, more and more boards are exempting more and more small firms from the scope of the levy.
Out of 27 boards, only six have no exemption provision for small firms. Three of them, gas, electricity and water, obviously have no small firms in their industries. In the last six months, four boards have decided to exempt small firms. The biggest of these are the construction and road transport boards. The Construction I.T.B. in its current levy proposals, wishes to exclude firms with payrolls below £6,000, but even at that low level this will take 23,000 firms out of levy, getting on for half the total; half the total of the firms but only 4 per cent. of employees covered by the board. The Road Transport Board is discussing with its industry a proposal to exclude firms with payrolls below £5,000. This would take out some 30,000 firms, or 60 per cent. of the total; but again, only 8 per cent. of the employees.
The conclusion that we draw from this is not that small firms have no training needs whatever. They clearly do, as does every firm. But the training boards' levy grant system has not proved an effective instrument for meeting small firms' problems. This is an interim conclusion based on the progress so far of our general review of training boards, and we shall be making our final recommendations on this question when we issue the results of our review as a basis for consultation. This will be in the autumn. In the meantime, some decisions have to be made. It would be folly to disregard the evidence that we have in making those decisions.

Mr. Rose: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would say how far his thinking is going along the lines that where smaller firms, particularly, attain certain standards, as has been referred to, in that sort of case an exemption can be made from the grant levy scheme altogether, and whether this is one factor in this thinking which may get over some of the problems of bureaucracy and cost in trying to bring in the levy and totally avoid the levy schemes?

Mr. Bryan: That is a point which I covered a couple of minutes ago. It is not for lack of effort on the part of the


boards that the small firm is still a problem, despite the steps that they have taken.
I come to the hon. Gentleman's point. He asked me to account for the question of the Hairdressisng Board. We had already faced up to this question when we examined the first levy and grant proposals from the Hairdressing Board. Because of low rates of pay in the industry, the income from a levy of 1¼per cent. would have yielded enough income to provide only a very low rate of grants with practically no incentive effect. The board's operating costs, which were on a fairly modest scale, would have absorbed too large a portion of the levy income. But even this position was based on the board's proposition that no firms at all should be excluded from the levy. Hairdressing is an industry consisting very largely of small firms. The average firm employs only three or four people, and one-third of the employees are in firms which have a staff of three or fewer. We considered that some exemption of small firms would in any case be necessary on the grounds that I have already outlined, and it was clear that even a modest exemption, say, of firms with payrolls below £2,000 would have excluded so many firms as to make the board unviable. This led us to the decision to wind up the board.
It was with these considerations fairly foremost in our minds that we examined the Air Transport and Travel Board's first levy and grant proposals for the travel sector when they were submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval in February. They provided for a 1 per cent. levy with no exemption, and a grant scheme which made special provision for firms with payrolls of £10,000 or less. These small firms were to be able to receive back in grant half the levy if they completed a relatively simple training plan, and the other half if they joined a group training scheme. Alternatively, they could receive grants for off-the-job training. Our general approach pointed to excluding the small firms but we considered carefully whether an exception was justified for this industry.
Although the proposed grants scheme for small firms was simple, it still required a formalised approach to training which some small firms would find diffi-

cult, particularly as the board would not be making the services of their advisory staff available to these firms. It would be sanguine to expect all small firms to join a group training scheme at once. For small firms to release staff to go on courses is always difficult, and even in the off-season it was doubtful whether the limit on the grant available would make it worth the firm's while. There was also some evidence that, although the main employers' organisations supported the board's proposals, some small firms themselves would not endorse this support.
Given that our review was going on and that this was a very first scheme, we thought that it would be extremely annoying for the small travel agents to be included this year, only to find that they were taken out next year. It seemed far better for the board to start with a smaller number of larger firms and to look again at the question of the very small firms when it had more experience of its scheme and when we had the final conclusions of our review. We therefore referred the travel proposals back to the board, explaining that, in accordance with our general policy, we wished it to provide for some exclusion of small firms. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said, that this was a unanimous decision by the board.
The board submitted revised proposals excluding firms with payrolls of £10,000 or less, and these revised proposals are embodied in the levy Order which we are debating. They take the form of an amending Order because the board's main levy Order, which was made in May last year, covers the two years which started in April, 1970, and which ended in March, 1972. The original Order exempted the travel sector from levy for the first year up to March, 1971, and the amending Order puts into the main Order the correct rate of levy, with the exemption of the small firms, for the current year.
I now answer some questions put to me, and first those put by the hon. Member for Blackley. He asked why there should be a 1 per cent. levy for travel instead of a 2 per cent. levy for the other sectors of transport. This rate was proposed by the board, and it was regarded as appropriate because training costs are very much lower for the travel sector, since highly technical


skills are not involved. He also asked why the figure is 3·8 Der cent. for British Air Carriers compared with 2 per cent. for the other air transport activities, for example, airports, engineering servicing and so on. Again, the answer is that the high rates reflects the much higher costs of training for those highly specialised skills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked whether sums raised by different rates of levy were spent in the same area, in other words, whether there was cross-subsidisation. There is not. He asked what the yield of 1 per cent. levy on the travel sector would be. It is £145,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) asked about the State nubs at Carlisle—which is a strange subject to wander into the debate, but I will give the answer. State nubs were not leviable because the Crown is not covered by the Act. On the other hand, Thomas Cook is a limited company; but, although Crown-owned, it is not Crown employment. In fact, there is a member of Thomas Cook's on this particular board.
The hon. Member for Blackley spoiled his speech by saying that we were capitulating to our back-benchers—philistines he considers them to be. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West is well informed and he attends debates, a comment which does not apply to hon. Members opposite. As regards capitulating, the hon. Gentleman surely must agree that when we came to power it was sensible for us to review the progress of an Act which had been passed by a Conservative Government, which had been working for six years and which had been developing at enormous speed, with no fewer than 27 boards in different stages of development. This was nothing to do with any pressure from any source.

Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the review was started by the Labour Government and was merely continued by his Government?

Mr. Bryan: Yes. We are now carrying out that review. The reason it will not be published in consultative form until the autumn is that we are making a much wider-ranging review. The whole

field of manpower is being covered—Government training centres, employment services, and so on. This is a serious exercise and has nothing to do with pressure from any quarter.
As to the Secretary of State's power to approve a levy, we certainly agreed when the Bill was originally passed that the board should have the maximum autonomy; but I believe, especially in the light of experience, that the very least that the Secretary of State should be able to do is to approve a levy. This is not a question of rubber-stamping. If the hon. Gentleman argues that a levy must always be approved, it is ridiculous. The Minister's power would be non-existent. This is one of the ways in which the Minister puts across his policy. It is a load of tripe to say that by not rubber stamping every application for levy the Secretary of State is denigrating members of the board—and I hope that the trade union members whose services we greatly value will not think along those lines.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If the Secretary of State had nothing to do with the levy, presumably there would be no need for an order to come before the House and there would be no parliamentary control.

Mr. Bryan: That is well put. The attempt by the hon. Member for Blackley to put in doubt the zeal of my party for training is pathetic. The amount of effective interest there is in training in the two parties can be judged by looking at the numbers on each side of the House tonight, my hon. Friends heavily outnumbering hon. Members opposite.
I accept that the coincidence of my right hon. Friend's setting out his interim guidance on this question just when the board had submitted its prepared proposals placed the board in a difficulty. However, the board received some forewarning from the Government's assessor about the position of small firms and it has considered at length whether to exempt them. Although the board's conclusion that such firms should not be exempted had the support of the major trade organisations, it must be accepted as an essential feature of the training board system that decisions on whether to approve the board's proposals rest under the Act with my right hon. Friend, who has to be satisfied that they conform with his general policy.
I think that I have answered all the questions put to me. I assure the House that the interesting points which have been raised will be noted. I ask the House not to accept the Prayer.

Question put and negatived.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committee), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to remove the limit imposed by subsection (5) of section 1 of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, as amended, on the contributions under that section towards the expenses of local authorities in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the said section 1 or by way of rate support grant which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session removing that limit.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

POOL COMPETITIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committee), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

POOL COMPETITIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as respects certain competitions conducted by registered pool promoters, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred in consequence of, or in connection with, the provisions of the said Act by any board or authority, and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

WAYS AND MEANS

POOL COMPETITIONS

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as respects certain competitions conducted by registered pool promoters, it is expedient to authorise any charge to pool betting duly attributable to provisions about competitions for prizes.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — DOMENICHINO PICTURE (SALE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

8.18 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The manner in which the Domenichino picture "The Adoration of the Shepherds" was sold a few weeks ago by the Governors of Dulwich Art Gallery has caused grave anxiety among those who care about our museums and galleries and our heritage of art treasures.
The governors of that gallery had long been concerned about the funds which they had or were likely to have to maintain the gallery, in view of rising costs, and to provide the security measures they were told were necessary. They were unable to get any further funds from the Alleyn Foundation which owns the gallery, and they made every effort to raise resources from numerous bodies. For some years the governors had been anxious about the situation and I understand they had approached, among other bodies, the Greater London Council, the National Gallery and the Victoria and


Albert Museum and that they had informed the Chairman of the Standing Commission of Museums and Galleries that if they were unable to raise sufficient money they might one day be forced to sell one of their pictures.
Finally, their attempts to raise money proving unsuccessful, they decided to sell this picture. It was one of the outstanding pictures in the magnificent collection left to Dulwich College in 1811, and it has hung in the Dulwich Gallery since 1814. Incidentally, the donor, Sir Francis Bourgeois expressed a desire that it should be kept by Dulwich College for ever for the inspection of the public.
The sale of the picture became a secret venture. No one knew about it, apart from the Secretary of State for Education and Science whose agreement has to be sought, under the Charities Act, 1968, before a treasure from a public gallery or museum can be sold. The Friends of the Dulwich Gallery were not informed. This is an important and influential body which has frequently helped the gallery in the past. The Standing Commission of Museums and Galleries was not informed. Indeed, no one knew about it until about three weeks before the picture was sold at Sotheby's.
The first public announcement was made in an advertisement by Sotheby's in the Burlington Magazine, which I understand appeared on 3rd March. The first statement in a newspaper appeared on 8th March, and the picture was sold at Sotheby's on 24th March. In effect, no one had time to consider the consequences or the seriousness of the situation, and the public and the art world were inexcusably left in the dark.
Fortunately, by the last-minute intervention of the Scottish National Gallery which, like others, had no prior knowledge of the sale, the worst disasters of this secret, rushed sale were avoided. The picture did not pass from public into private ownership, and it was not sold abroad. 'The Scottish National Gallery offered £75,000 out of its £80,000 annual grant for the purchase of this picture, on the understanding that the Government would provide another £30,000. This the Government agreed to. As far as anyone knows, the Government were not asked to make such a contribution before the

sale was decided upon or made. Had they been, and the £30,000 had been agreed at that stage, this sum might have been sufficient to form the nucleus of a successful rescue fund, and thereby prevent the picture from leaving the Dulwich Gallery.
At the end of the day we have the ludicrous situation that the picture, by the provision, directly and indirectly, of public grants, continues to be hung in a public gallery, but not in the one to which it was bequeathed, and where it had been a cherished exhibit for more than 150 years. Moreover, its loss from that gallery has impoverished the historical significance of the Dulwich collection as an index of late eighteenth-century taste.
My purpose in raising the matter this evening is not to cry over spilt milk, or to criticise, or to allocate blame. It is to seek to remedy the obvious serious deficiency, revealed by this case, in the procedures which govern the sale of our art treasures from public museums and galleries. I feel that early action should be taken in this matter, as similar situations may arise at any time.
The trustees of many galleries may find themselves—indeed, do find themselves —short of money, and they may, in desperation, and reluctantly, decide that the only way out of their dilemma is to sell one of their valuable exhibits. Following the Domenichino precedent, they may assume that they will get the acquiescence of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and that if they act with the utmost speed and secrecy all will be well. Their gallery may lose one of its finest pictures, but their financial worries will be at an end. I suggest that that assumption should be removed as quickly as possible, both in their interests, and in the interests of the public.
The disposal of a masterpiece from a gallery or museum should not be a matter for the discretion of its trustees. It is a matter of wide public concern, and if things are left as they are, and the present wholly inadequate—indeed, one might say non-existent—procedures surrounding the sale of treasures from our museums and galleries remain unaltered, two undesirable consequences are likely to follow.
The first is that potential donors of works of art to galleries and museums


may be reluctant to make such gifts, through fear that they may be sold one day without adequate safeguard or scrutiny. Second, masterpieces in our public galleries, which have long been part of our national heritage, may irretrievably disappear. I am not arguing that under no circumstances should an exhibit in a public gallery or museum be disposed of. What I am urging is that stringent safeguarding procedures should be established and operated before any such disposal can be effected in future, and that these safeguards should be made known.
The responsibility for doing that lies clearly with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The right hon. Lady has a specific obligation under Section 35 of the Charities Act, 1968, to grant or refuse consent when the trustees of a public museum or gallery seek to sell any of their possessions. She also has a wider responsibility, in that she is answerable to this House and the country for the welfare of the nation's art collections. I invite the Under-Secretary of State tonight to make a declaration whereby those two responsibilities can be reconciled. I ask him to tell us that in future a different course of action will be taken by the Secretary of State when she receives an application.
When she does, I suggest that she should do three things. First, she should insist that full publicity is given to the proposed sale. Second, that ample time is allowed for the possible raising of sufficient funds to prevent the need for the sale, or for devising some alternative solution. Third, as she has no art expertise in her Department, she should consult those bodies who have before giving her consent. In the Domenichino case, the Under-Secretary told me in answer to a Question, she consulted no one because she believed this was unnecessary. I ask that, in future, such consultation should take place, particularly with the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, which has the requisite knowledge and expertise and which, in comparable cases in the past, such as the Soane Museum, the Iveagh Bequest at Kenwood and the Wellington Museum, was able to provide valuable help and advice.
There is no need for me to elaborate on these proposals. They present no difficulty and their desirability is self-evident. I have elaborated them to the right hon. Lady in the long letter that I wrote to her about three weeks ago, so she has had ample time to consider them. I hope that the Under-Secretary will now indicate her full agreement with these proposals. If he does he will dispel the justified disquiet which the sale of the Domenichino has aroused in the minds of all those who care about our national art treasures.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Carol Johnson: As I am a governor of Dulwich College and therefore must accept responsibility for the decision to sell this picture, perhaps the House will bear with me if I try to put this matter in some perspective.
The history of the Dulwich Picture Gallery goes back to the foundation of Alleyn's College of God's Gift, a gift made by Edward Alleyn, the actor and contemporary of Shakespeare, who died in 1526. He was the master of the royal games and acquired great wealth and a great deal of land in what was then the village of Dulwich, becoming lord of the manor. He was anxious to perpetuate his memory by the creation of the foundation, which also included some pictures, although of no interest or merit. There was a further gift of pictures by the bookseller and actor, William Cartwright, a few years later, and these pictures, in earlier years, were hung on the college walls.
But the most important part of the collection were the pictures bequeathed by Sir Francis Bourgeois in 1611. They also have an interesting history, because the nucleus of the collection was a collection formed on behalf of King Stanislas of Poland with the intention of creating a Polish national gallery. Unfortunately, he was deposed and that collection never came into existence, but the pictures passed from Sir Francis Bourgeois and in his will they were left to Dulwich College. To house them, this charming, beautiful and functional building was built by Sir John Soane.
Since those times, there have been many further bequests and both the gallery and the pictures attract visitors


from all over the world. This collection, of which the governors are very proud, is housed in what Robert Browning christened "the gallery in a garden".
Why then even contemplate selling any pictures from a unique collection? I should like to explain the background which led to the governors' decision to sell. The pictures were removed from the gallery during the war. This was a fortunate move because the gallery itself was badly damaged. It was rebuilt after the war, but unfortunately the war damage payments covered only half the cost of renovation, so the gallery was substantially in debt and has been facing financial problems ever since.
In view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said, I should like to say something about the gallery's financial position, as this is not merely relevant to the decision to sell but, in my view, a complete justification for it. I should like to remove any misunderstandings about the governors' resources. It is true that the gallery is part of the Alleyn's Foundation of God's Gift and is administered by the governors, but the Foundation includes four other schools, apart from Dulwich, together with the chapel and the almshouses, and the gallery receives only a minute percentage of the income from the estate. This is a fixed percentage and cannot be increased, except by modifying the whole trust, which would need the agreement of the other beneficiaries, and it might be difficult to obtain that.
In addition to the rising costs to which my right hon. Friend referred, in recent years the governors have been faced with substantial expenditure necessitated by the urgent and expensive security apparatus which has had to be installed to avoid a repetition of the sensational theft a few years ago when, among many of the valuable pictures stolen, was Rembrandt's "Girl at the Window".
For many years the governors have been trying to improve and increase the gallery's resources. We are told that we should have let the world know of our financial plight and that money would have poured in. Those who take that view might be interested to learn of some of the abortive approaches that we have made in recent years.
As far back as September, 1966, an approach was made to the Arts Council for a grant. The Council advised the governors to appeal to the local authorities in South London. That we did, without success. After that, and on reporting back to the Arts Council, we were told by the Council that it was unable to help.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. We approached that Commission and discussed our financial problems with it as long ago as April, 1967. We prepared for the Commission a most careful memorandum setting out the needs of the gallery, and later we had a visit from members of the Commission. It was on the Commission's suggestion that the governors approached no less than 25 of the largest trusts and foundations in this country and America to raise an endowment of £100.000, which the Commission agreed we required.
After all that effort, the meagre sum of £5,000 was raised. Had the response to those efforts been more promising, the governors would have felt justified in mounting a public appeal for the remainder of the money, but in view of that unfortunate result, that was deemed to be inappropriate.
We then went to the Greater London Council, to which my right hon. Friend referred, in the hope of obtaining a larger grant and, indeed, the G.L.C. increased its grant from £2,000 to £3.000. We are grateful for its support, though it does not deal with our major problem.
Then, at the suggestion of County Hall, we again approached the South London boroughs, and this produced £75. Back we went to the Arts Council, which told us that it could do nothing. However, it wrote to the Department of Education and Science suggesting that the Department should consider making an annual grant to the Dulwich College Picture Gallery on the lines of the grant made to Sir John Soane's Museum.
The chairman of the governers, Lord Shawcross, met the present Paymaster-General, Lord Eccles, to discuss the financial difficulties of the gallery, but the latter did not hold out much hope of the Government extending the sort of help to Dulwich that had been given to the Soane Museum. He was certainly aware of the


dire financial straits of the trust from the point of view of the gallery.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the Friends of the Dulwich Gallery and to complaints that they had not been consulted. However, they represent a very small body. There are not more than 150 of them who each make an annual payment of one guinea or so a year. Certainly they could not have been expected to raise the £100,000 that was required.
After all this, covering several years, and after making every effort we could to raise the necessary money, we were faced with the prospect of disposing of one of our pictures. We took the most careful advice, particularly from the representative of the Royal Academy, who serves on the board of trustees, about which picture to sell and which one would do the least harm to the collection as a whole.
On the legal side, authority for the sale was obtained from the Department of Education and Science, and I am sure that the Minuister will be able to deal with this aspect. I suggest that neither the terms of the original Alleyn Deed of Foundation or the terms of Sir Francis Bourgeois' will are relevant today, because the position, powers, responsibilities and rights of the governors are governed by Act of Parliament. The Dulwich College Act, 1857, and the Order in Council of 18th August, 1882, deal with the management of the Foundation.
My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the decision of the Governors was a difficult one to take. They deferred contemplating it as long as possible. They made every effort open to them to secure the funds to maintain the gallery. If they had not taken the action which they did, the gallery would have had to be closed. It is a popular gallery which is free to the public and, as I have said at the beginning, attracts visitors from all over the world. If my right hon. Friend had served with me on the board of governors I do not believe that in these circumstances he would have come to any other decision than that to which we came.

8.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I understand the strong

feelings aroused by this matter in the mind of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).
It is positively valuable that we should have time—by the good fortune of our business today we have time—to consider this matter at rather greater length than would normally be the case on an ordinary Adjournment debate. It also has the advantage that the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who speaks with great authority on the matter, having been intimately concerned with each move, has been able to make public certain matters, which have not previously been fully ventilated, to the great advantage of the debate.
Although neither the right hon. Member for Vauxhall nor the hon. Member for Lewisham, South know this, I have a personal connection with this particular collection. Until 1959 the then chairman of the trustees, now deceased, was my uncle. I therefore knew at first-hand the passionate care which the trustees bestowed upon their picture collection.
At the risk of sounding momentarily pedantic, I should like, first, to deal with the purely legal side, but I shall also deal with what I may loosely call the strictly practical side.
Since I am dealing with a legal power vested in my right hon. Friend, I have to start by saying that it is fundamental to the sale of this picture and the request for consent by the trustees that a statutory power must be exercised only for the purposes for which it was conferred by Parliament. The relevant power is conferred by Section 23(1) of the Charities Act, 1960. I am sure that it was merely a slip on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but for those who read our debates it might be important. If I heard him correctly, he said that it was in Section 35.

Mr. Strauss: Of the 1968 Act.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Section 23 of the Charities Act, 1960, gives the power vested in my right hon. Friend, and that is the one under which she was operating in giving her consent. That power enables her to authorise any action proposed or contemplated in the administration of an educational charity which appears to her to be
expedient in the interests of the charity".


In this case the trustees represented to my right hon. Friend that it was expedient, in the interests of the Dulwich Art Gallery, that they should be authorised to sell the Domenichino to raise funds, without which it would in all probability be impossible for them to maintain the gallery.
The essence of the problem which had to be considered by my right hon. Friend can be put in the form of two questions and the answers thereto. The first question is: did the gallery need funds on the scale contemplated; that is, a capital sum of between £80,000 and £100,000? The answer clearly is: Yes.
Secondly, was there, at the stage at which my right hon. Friend was formally approached, at the beginning of December, 1970, any practicable alternative way of raising the sum involved? I believe the answer is: No.
In the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, South, there is no need for me to argue the extent of the financial plight of the gallery. He does it with an authority that I do not possess. For reasons that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member will understand, I do not propose to go into some of the most pressing reasons why it is necessary for expenditure to be incurred by the gallery. It would not be in the interests of the gallery to elaborate the matter, other than to say that the financial plight is common ground.
As the hon. Member said, by the time that my right hon. Friend was approached for an order authorising the sale of the picture the trustees had spent four years, or thereabouts, attempting to raise the money in other ways. We have heard tonight of the details, step by step. They were described in a letter to The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross. Put shortly, the story as it came before us—and as it has been confirmed tonight—was that the trustees appointed a special appeal committee to advise them on the best way of raising the money. The trustees did consult the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. They did apply to the Arts Council for financial assistance. Indeed, they leant directly on the advice of a committee, specially established, and they appealed to an impressively large number of organisasations, both in this country and in the United States. They did apply to the

Greater London Council. They did apply to the Boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. Finally, they approached my noble Friend the Paymaster-General about the possibility of Government help.
The net result of all these steps, taken with such earnestness and, no doubt, skill, was that the committee realised slightly more than £6,000 in capital, with the other additions mentioned by the hon. Member.
The trustees had exploratory discussions with my noble Friend the Paymaster-General. He put to them two suggestions for methods by which they might run the gallery on a more economical footing. I do not believe that it has been previously made public that, without any commitment, he also suggested that they might consider the possibility of the gallery's becoming, in effect, an outpost of the National Gallery, maintained out of public funds and—as a corollary—subject to Treasury control.
The trustees, as they were fully entitled to do—I make no complaint about it—did not feel able to pursue that suggestion. It is only reasonable to make that matter known because there have been assertions that my noble Friend did not take as much care in the matter as, without question, he did.
We reached the position that the trustees decided to make no public appeal for funds for the gallery, for the reason given by the hon. Member, namely, that they were advised by the committee that the appeal was not likely to be successful. If I may supplement this, that advice was confirmed by its own experience in an attempt to raise funds for another institution forming part of the same charity which, to put it mildly had been very far from a success.
That was the situation when the trustees applied to the Secretary of State for an order under Section 23(1) of the Charities Act. I have shown that it was reasonable for the Department to say that it was satisfied, on the evidence, that there was no practicable alternative to the sale of a picture forming part of the gallery's main collection; and that is how an order was accordingly made authorising the sale of the Domenichino.
The sale of this picture, the trustees had been advised, would do the least damage to the collection as a whole. This decision has been criticised on a number


of grounds but I venture to say that the only relevant ground—and I use that phrase because the relevancy follows from what I have said about the questions which have to be considered in the context of Section 23—is the claim that there were alternative ways of raising the funds and that more time should have been given to the trustees to raise them before the order was made.
This, frankly, is a matter of opinion. The short answer was given in the letter to The Times from the chairman of the governors to which I have referred, in which he said:
… in spite of all the publicity the matter has received we have only received one donation of £5.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman must realise that Lord Rosse, Chairman of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, takes a very different view and considers that if it had been known that this picture was to be sold the Commission might have been able to devise, through its experience and contacts in the art world, ways of saving it.

Mr. van Straubenzee: That is not so, but I will come to Lord Rosse's letter, which I have read. Surely what he was saying was that the Commission would be glad to give advice. The trustees have had, to put it loosely, bags of advice. After all the publicity given to the matter after the sale had been announced there was only one donation of £5 received.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the letter from the Chairman of the Standing Commission. What it said was that they would be glad to offer advice, but what the trustees were short of was funds, not advice. I have yet to hear any practical suggestions about what the trustees could have done to raise more funds.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, South for making reference to the Friends of the Dulwich Gallery. Like him, from my position, I nay the warmest tribute to the work of that body which I know is enormously appreciated by the trustees. But to suggest that it could have raised a sum even remotely approaching £100,000, which the picture raised, is not realistic. I am grateful to him for putting right a misconception very much abroad as to the way in which

the admittedly wealthy Alleyn Trust, which runs various schools as well as the gallery, could have been asked to cooperate. The answer is that the administration of the income of the Alleyn Trust is regulated by schemes which have effect under the Charities Act.
In practice, my hon. Friend could amend those schemes only with the consent of those who administer all the institutions which benefit from the trust. I have only to ask the House to consider the difficulty of obtaining the consent to a variation of a scheme from all those who receive income for it to realise what lies in the way of reaching agreement, which would necessarily imply that some would take a reduced income. The Alleyn Trust was not a free agent.
It has been mentioned outside the House that the National Art Collections Fund should have been brought into the matter. That fund is constituted
To assist public art collections in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth to acquire works of art and objects of historical importance".
There can be no question of the National Art Collections Fund making a substantial contribution towards the maintenance —and I stress the word "maintenance" —of the gallery.
To sum up, when the time came to consider whether an order ought to be made under Section 23(1), all the evidence before my right hon. Friend was that this was the best means of raising the money which all agreed the gallery required for its continued existence. I personally believe that everything which has happened since confirms that conclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that my Department should have taken expert advice before making the order, and in a Parliamentary Question earlier this Session he referred specifically to local organisations, art authorities, or other interested parties. He has also suggested that the Department should have consulted such organisations and authorities because there is no expert evidence available within the Department. It is sufficient to point out that the Department's officers include the staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum, whose director is Sir John Pope-Hennessy. It cannot, therefore, be sustained that a Department which can look to such a man for advice lacks any expert advice. In


addition, the Department can, if it wishes, turn for advice to any of the national galleries.
The real answer to this point is that it is wholly misconceived, because the questions which the Department had to consider could not be affected by the sort of consideration to which the advice of such experts would have been directed. The question which the Department had to consider, and on which my right hon. Friend had to adjudicate, was whether the sale of the Domenichino was expedient in the interests of the gallery. In the particular circumstances—the possibility that the gallery might have to chose if funds were not raised—the artistic value of the Domenichino, even the possibility that it might be exported if sold, could not properly be taken into account in the legal context. Therefore, there was no question upon which the Department could consult these bodies.
I have been asked on other occasions to give a guarantee that the Department will not be asked to make another order authorising the trustees to sell another picture from the main collection. I cannot in good faith give a guarantee that the trustees will never make another approach of that kind. But there is every reason to hope that the recent sale will enable the trustees to maintain the gallery out of their additional income, at least for the foreseeable future. It was only with the greatest reluctance that the trustees decided to sell, and that was when the Gallery was in financial extremes. What the trustees want to do is to keep their pictures.
One question raised by the right hon. Gentleman relates to the effect on other potential donors. This is a valid point. But the Department and the trustees have to deal with the situation as it exists in any particular case. I have outlined with some care, both on the strictly legal side and on the side looked after by my noble

Friend, the detailed and careful scrutiny which was given in this particular case. The harsh realities of that situation left no doubt at all about the action that was taken. I am grateful that our business has enabled me to give a detailed and full explanation to the House.

Mr. Strauss: There is one question with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Complaint has been made about the lapse of time between the public announcement of the sale of the picture and the date when the picture was sold, which was less than three weeks. Indeed, the period was so short that possible supporters of a rescue fund could not be mobilised and it was impossible to do anything about it. When one bears in mind that the appeal to rescue a picture might be more potent than an appeal to provide maintenance money for a gallery, it is highly desrable that in future there should be a reasonable gap between the public announcement of sale and the actual moment when the sale takes place. I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that in future the Secretary of State will see to it that sufficient time elapses in this respect to enable a possible rescue operation to be launched, perhaps with success.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The technical answer is that, under the powers invested in my right hon. Friend by Section 23, the Secretary of State for the time being would not, I think, have the legal power to make such a requirement. I take the point, however. But, on the facts of this case, very wide publicity was given to the fact that the sale had been authorised, and it follows from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who is himself a trustee, that if in that period there had been a reasonable expectation of the necessary funds being raised, the trustees would have been the foremost people to have welcomed the alternative solution.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (SOCIAL SERVICES)

9.7 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I gave notice to Mr. Speaker's office and to the Scottish Office of my intention to raise the question of means-tested welfare service charges and their effects in Scotland.
The House will be aware that, in the last week or fortnight, a very expensive national advertising campaign has been undertaken by the Government in an attempt to persuade people how humanitarian and kindly right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are in making sure that people get their means-tested benefits.
The House and the country will recall the election battle-cry of the Conservative Party about the need for selectivity and the need to channel aid to those who needed it most. We were told that there would be great compassion for the sick, the poor, the unemployed and the old, but that there would be a merciless rooting out of the scroungers, and that this exercise would give the Government room for manoeuvre to reduce direct taxation.
So it was that we had sixpence off income tax for the better off one day and increased National Health Service charges the next day for the less well off. So we had the beginnings of the cynical creation of two nations. The basic principle on which the National Health Service was founded, that the healthy would pay for the sick by fair, equitable, progressive taxation, is being eroded and will be further eroded in the course of the next 12 months and longer.
It is abundantly clear that, far from being at the end of the road, we are only just at the beginning. In United Kingdom terms, the increased prescription charges are estimated to save £30 million a year. Another way of saying that is that the sick will pay so that surtax payers and the capital gains people may have their tax reliefs.
Later, we were told that the present 20p per item on a National Health Service prescription is to be increased to 50p later this year. According to the authorities, that will apply to almost half the drugs now being prescribed in

the National Health Service. Opticians expect increases of up to 230 per cent. in the amounts that patients will have to pay for spectacles.
My point of complaint, which I shall spell out in a little detail later in my speech, is that the Government's advertisements were designed to deceive the people, rather than to inform them. It is true that the National Health Service charges will not apply to children under 15, to the over-65s, to the war disabled, or to others who are in genuine hardship. The fact remains that many will have to choose between buying medicine and staying ill. As Mr. W. M. Darling, the President of the Pharmaceutical Society, predicts:
… many will be seeking their cures from the shelves of supermarkets or old medicines stored away in cupboards and medicine chests, until the money can be found for the doctor's prescription.
Despite all the Government's protestations, these cuts and charges are bound to produce a society which will be less healthy, less fair and less civilised.
When the advertisements appeared about free milk, free school meals, free prescriptions, free welfare foods, free optical treatment and free dental treatment, it occurred to me that the word "free" appeared 18 times. It would have been more accurate if it had said "means-tested" milk, "means-tested" school meals, and "means-tested" prescriptions. However, I shall come to a more serious point than that later in my speech.
The advertisements were a wicked attempt to present the Tory barbarian with a human face, with the milk of human kindness flowing in rivers from a gentle, generous, warm-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is hard to conceal the men with faces of flint and hearts of stone. I quote from the Daily Record, a very popular daily newspaper in Scotland, which ran a headline on 29th April saying:
School Meals Scandal—50,000 School Children Doing Without.
The article expressed the anxiety and worry of education chiefs and health authorities in Glasgow. The newspaper had obtained figures from the City Corporation to the effect that over 9,000 children had already stopped taking meals


at school. That is more than one in seven. The Record article went on:
'It's back to the days of the jeelie piece', said the city's Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Archibald Miller.
The paper then gave the figures for Dundee—a total of 4,000 fewer meals per week since the increase. That is a 6 per cent. decrease. Put another way, 792 children in Dundee had stopped taking meals. In Perthshire a 12 per cent. drop was recorded, and the Record went on to say that distracted parents were sending their kids off with a sandwich or a penny for a snack. It was either that or begging for free meals.
The allegation was made in the Record article that in some schools underprivileged children were being ordered to stand up in their places and be counted as free-school-mealers. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture will inquire where the Daily Record got that information, and that the Government will take steps to put a stop to it.
That is the kind of thing that is bound to happen with a system of this kind. The Record went on to say:
What a testimonial for Prime Minister Heath's 'Better Britain'.
A typical response was made to that article by the wee Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education. Bearing in mind his and the Government's determination to maintain a little enclave of privilege in fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh, the reply which the Minister made in the Record the following day, 30th April was typical of the humbug and cant we have come to expect from him. Unfortunately he is not here to answer the debate. He has probably swung off to the Scottish Tory Party Conference in Aberdeen, leaving the baby to be held by the hon. Gentleman, to whom I apologise. He is preoccupied with safeguarding and furthering the interests of the Scottish brewers on Thursday mornings in Committee, and it makes a change for him to come to defend his Government's policy on starving the kids.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education replied in the Record of 30th April:
I can well understand public concern at speculation that some youngsters are not taking school meals due to the increase in

charges this month, and may thus be losing a valuable nourishment which they need.
I can well imagine his Christian breast heaving with compassion as he signed that Civil Service brief and sent it to the Record. He added:
In fact, numbers taking school meals normally fall at this time of year—due to factors like examinations—"—
I am not sure why the imminence of examinations should make children take sandwiches instead of a hot meal but that is what the Minister said. He went on:
… but my Department will be carrying out an all-Scotland survey towards the end of next month to find out exactly what the situation is.
Supposing it does carry out that survey. What happens then? Suppose there is a catastrophic decline in the number of school meals. Will the Government abandon the price increase? On the contrary, they have already said that there will be another increase in the price of school meals in April, 1973. No matter what that survey proves, the Government are determined that school meal prices shall rise still further. What is the point of the exercise?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) continued:
I think it is right that people who can afford it should pay the higher charge—which at 12p is still only three-fifths of the economic cost of the meal—so that an unfair burden should not be carried by the taxpayer.
That confirms what we have been saying. The Government are charging these kids and their parents the increased meal charges to give surtax benefits to people earning over £4,000. That is the wealth redistribution that the Government have stood for and are standing for.
The hon. Gentleman went on, in appalling language:
But it is vitally important that no one should go without because of financial circumstances. I was 100 per cent. in support of the Government's decision to raise the level of family income qualifying for free meals, As a result of our decision, more children in Scotland than ever before are entitled to free meals as a right.
He estimated that the number of free school meals could rise from 96.000 by about one-third, and that that represented nearly one-third of the total numbers who were taking school meals. We had the usual sanctimonious humbug which we have come to expect from that particular


Minister, especially with the imminence of some critical local elections in Scotland. No wonder he and his friends got a drubbing in Scotland, especially in Glasgow, and not least in his constituency of Cathcart. His double-dealing and double-talk are at last being exposed for what they are. He is one of the juniors Ministers who is fighting hard for an increase in his own salary of £5,000 a year. I hope that the people now paying the increased school meal charges in Cathcart will note that. He is very militant when it comes to his own salary.
I quote a specific example of the school meals issue. On Sunday, 9th May, I wrote a few caustic comments in the Sunday Mail about our brand new soup kitchen economy. I quoted the exact figures from the Government's advertisement, and on the following Monday I was approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who said that he had had three telephone calls challenging the figures from people who said that they had incomes below the figures in the Government's advertisements and had been told that they did not qualify for the free school meals.
I had an immediate response from a lady in Stranraer. She has two children, one going to school, and she says:
I read with interest your article in the Sunday Mail, 9th May. I would have thought that you were the last person to be taken in by Tory propaganda.
She was right. She continues:
My husband earns £16·52 per week. This includes 90p family allowance. You show me the Scottish farm worker who earns any more. I enclose the replies I received when for the first time in my life I swallowed my pride and applied for anything free. We have two children, one 13 years old, who travels 15 miles each morning to school and so has no chance of coming home for lunch, and one aged three months.
The letter dated 29th April is the reply I received when I asked for an explanation of why I did not qualify for free meals at school.
So what about the £20.75 the Tories have splashed over the newspapers? Is this the same old double talk and eyewash we have come to expect from them or is there a different table for Scotland?
I hesitate to write my Member of Parliament for Galloway for an explanation as he is of course a Tory and I feel he would try to put me off with the usual excuses. I look forward to hearing your reply.
I hope that she gets it tonight, because I quote now from the letter which the

Tory-controlled County Council of the County of Wigtown sent:
Thank you for your letter … enclosing cutting from national newspaper and asking why your son does not qualify for free school meals.
I would point out that the table you enclose is a guide only and according to the table issued to us by the the Scottish Education Department you do not qualify.
So there are two tables—one that is put out to con the public and another sent to education authorities which has some different figures. Prior to this Adjournment debate, I went to the Library and asked for that table. The Library produced a table to me. I have conferred with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but neither he nor I can understand the table.
I quote first from the Tory propaganda sheet that went out as an advertisement. It says that a married couple with two children, if the gross earnings including family allowances are £20·75, will be entitled to free school meals. I have a photograph of the annexe to Circular 3/71, a document issued to education authorities. I do not know whether it is the same as that which was issued by the Scottish Education Department. This is part of the English document, but the table is the same. According to this, the net income scale for a family with two children who would be entitled to free school meals is £13·20, not £30 gross earnings.
There are some peculiar figures in this document which neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell could understand. The left-hand portion, which is headed "Part A", is the size of the family. The horizontal lines under "Weekly Income" given in decimal pounds and pence is "Part B". So reading across from 2 in the vertical column, which I suppose means two children, the net income on which presumably they would get free school meals is £l3·20. There is a figure before that figure on the same line—£13·65. Going further down for a family of 10 the first figure in the horizontal line is £34·45 and right at the end of the horizontal line there is the figure £30·40.
I will hand this document to the Under-Secretary, and he can interpret it for me in due course. As neither my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell nor I could


understand it, I wonder how many people in the country will be able to. The advertisement said that it is a guide only, but there is a great discrepancy between the figures in the newspaper advertisement and those in the Circular. Are there other tables for prescriptions, welfare milk and foods and optical and dental treatment, and are the guides which are going out different from the figures in that newspaper advertisement?
I received another letter from Glasgow. Interestingly enough, this person asks me not to mention her name. This shows some shame and distress at being in this situation. The letter says:
We read your letter in the Sunday Mail, 9th May, regarding free prescriptions etc. My husband is retired through illness and has a pension of £4.29 and sickness benefit of £8.10, which amounts to a total of £12,39 for two. We also read in all the papers of the leaflet issued by the Department of Health and Security about all the benefits. My husband applied as we were well below the amount stated in the papers. On 27th April, he got a reply stating that if our circumstances are the same, our prescription charges can be refunded in full if they are 73np in any one week. Just who do they think they are kidding?
I do not know what answer I can send: I will wait for the Minister's reply.
But hundreds of thousands of people will not have a clue about their entitlement, and those advertisements will not help them, en the contrary, false hopes will have been raised and obviously have been raised by the figures in those advertisements. The Government are creating a form-filling, means-tested, frightened, bitter, disillusioned nation, divided between those who have not and who are being bled even further and those who have and are being given more.
We will have further evidence tonight, after the votes are counted in England, of the continuing disillusion and the anger which most people feel for the Government who have so bitterly deceived them since they were elected. I hope that the Minister will reply to the facts and figures which I have given, and give people the truth, tell them exactly what they are entitled to and correct what I believe are errors and extravagances in the newspaper advertisements of the last fortnight.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I know that it is awkward for a Minister to get a telephone call to the effect that

the House is likely to collapse and that some hon. Members want to throw questions at him. I thank him for his courtesy in coming here. I do not think he will be able to answer some of these questions precisely, but they should be asked and we should be failing in our duty if we did not use an opportunity like this to ask them.
I have only one question, which does not relate to children. We are concerned that those advertisements concerning prescriptions, school meals, dental and optical forms are urging people to make application. The pamphlet I have with me indicates that under certain circumstances certain things will be given free. Although I am usually more cautious than my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in complaining about these matters, I agree with him that the word "free" is often too liberally used in this context.
At the beginning of April my attention was drawn to the case of an old man who had applied for free spectacles and had been refused. In fairness, I must admit that the application and refusal had been made prior to 1st April, the date from which certain new arrangements came into force.
I took the matter up with my local office which deals with these matters—the staff there are extremely helpful and always respond well—and I was surprised at the reply, which was dated 13th April. I will not divulge the name of the man whose case I am raising, except to say that he is an ex-miner with an industrial injury benefit of £3·35 and a mine worker's pension of £1.50. He and his wife have a total income of £12.95.
The local office worked out the disregards and, taking account of his entitlement, told me that his application for free spectacles had been refused because it was considered that he could meet the charge for his spectacles by saving over a short period; and the Supplementary Benefits Commission did not think that free spectacles should be given in his case.
That seemed fair enough, and this old man had to save a little extra for his spectacles. I replied to that letter and enclosed one of the forms I have with me, pointing out the liberal use of the word "free". I also pointed out that the figure shown on the pamphlet, under


the heading "Free optical or dental treatment", was £17.95 for a couple, £5 more than this couple's income. I accept that the larger figure is gross, but so is this couple's income. I said that I was surprised at the date on the local office's letter of 13th April. They must have known of the new circumstances that applied from 1st April.
I could have understood an answer, "If Mr. So-and-so had applied subsequent to 1st April he would have been treated in such and such a way; but, as his application was prior to 1st April, he is on the old scale." There was no such indication.
When I wrote enclosing this leaflet and asking for observations, I got a brief note saying that what I had to say would be investigated and they would write to me again. That did not suggest to me that the officers dealing with my letters had in mind that a new set of circumstances were now applicable and that the answer might have been given at once.
I suggest that, with this wide dispersal of information, by 1st April everyone concerned should have been aware of the position and should have been able to answer my question right away. The fact that it was not answered right away indicates that things are not so cut and dried as the widely dispersed advertisements suggest.
When we are told that an income of £17·95 for a couple entitles them to free optical and dental treatment, I wonder what is the catch. The Minister may say that there is no catch. If so, I shall be very happy. If he tells me that he cannot give me a precise answer now, I shall expect an answer in the near future. However, I hope that he has a good idea about the matter and can at least give a partial answer tonight.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising this matter tonight. Whatever the Minister may think, this is an issue of real importance to the people of Scotland.
Hon. Members could not but be struck by the reaction of their constituents when the Government announced the charges.

I recall people coming to me and inquiring how they would be placed. They were people having to buy prescriptions every month. I knew that they were not exempted. There were deficiencies in the Labour Government's scheme, but under this scheme many people who are chronically sick, in the terms which reasonable people use, do not qualify for exemptions.
These charges are attacks on the sick. They are an attack on our National Health Service and on the principle that everyone should be entitled to the best facilities which the Health Service can offer regardless of income. They are a deterrent to people who wish to keep themselves healthy.
The Minister may say that that is the inevitable Socialist Pavlovian reaction. But it was not only ordinary people who reacted in that way; it was the medical and dental associations, which are in no way sympathetic to the aims of the British Labour movement.
The British Dental Association said:
The charges will fall most heavily on those in the greatest need of treatment and those who are already overdue for treatment will be encouraged to neglect their mouths still further. Even patients who might on examination have been found to need minimal treatment will be deterred from consulting the dentist.
I could go on at length, but I shall not do so.
I had an interesting experience with my own dentist. I knew that the charges were coming into operation, so I phoned, two or three weeks before, asking for an appointment, which was overdue. The receptionist said, "I do not think that the charges are coming in. We have heard nothing about them." I said, "You can take it from me that they are coming in on 1st April."
I made the appointment and went to the dentist about three weeks ago. My dentist knows that I am now a Member of Parliament, but he has never discussed issues with me and has never indicated his political views. But he was very agitated about these proposals. He gave me a form which he had received at the beginning of April. He asked me to take it away, because he thought that it was incredible that a Government Department could issue such a complex document to be completed in respect of every patient. I took the form away,


and I have tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Social Services. This is an outrageous document.
We have not seen the end of the matter. We have been told that prescription charges will be related to the cost of the drugs. The Sunday Times says that the Government are having difficulty in working out the details—that they are meeting severe opposition—but when the Prime Minister was asked about the Sunday Times article he expressed confidence that the Government would be able to work out methods imposing these massive and disgusting charges on our people.
The main point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West concerned not the extent to which we abhor these charges or believe fundamentally in the ideal of a free Health Service; it was a much more serious charge. It was that the Government are deliberately misleading our people. That charge is justified. We are seeing the perversion of the Government's information services.
The process began with the documents issued on the Common Market. Regardless of one's view on that matter, if one reads those documents one appreciates that they are not straightforward, factual accounts of the E.E.C.; they are subjective statements, written by someone who obviously supports the idea of Britain's entry. If anybody doubts this he should read the statements about the economic growth of the Community, and how it is said to be attributable to the existence of that organisation. That is not a fact; it is an opinion, which is challenged by many of our economists.
But the latest development is far more serious, as shown by what appeared in the Daily Mirror, a mass circulation newspaper, on 3rd May. It carried an advertisement concerning Government expenditure which reads more like something from the Conservative Central Office than a Government Department. The big banner headline refers to free milk, free prescription charges, free welfare food, free optical treatment and free dental treatment, but it contains one sentence which I particularly resent. It says:
If your weekly family income is roughly the same as or less than the figures below you should qualify for benefits either free or partly free.

It is the word "should" which gives the game away. If the Government had said, "You may qualify, depending on your rent, or on the amount of money that you have to spend in order to get to work", they might have had a case. But they did not say that. They said, "You should qualify". That gave the impression that if one did not qualify a mistake had been made by the Department.
If one looks at the document which my dentist gave me, one gets a different view. It contained a table—different from that referred to by my hon. Friend—concerning the size of family, rent, rates, expenses in connection with employment, and income limits. The income limits are a function of rent and rates, and a function of the expenses incurred in connection with employment. If the rent is substantially out of line with these figures, then the income limit is substantially different, and the same is true with expenses in connection with employment.
Why did the Government not publish this table? Was it too complicated'? Is that the reason with which we are to be fobbed off tonight? I think that this table did not meet the Government's purpose in seeking to give their party a boost at an appropriate moment-3rd May, 1971.
I suspect that a farm worker will be at a serious disadvantage with these charges. I do not want to be dogmatic, but how will a farmworker's rent be estimated? Will it be on the same lines as that used by the Agricultural Wages Board, which is an estimate which farmers have said is too low? Does a farm-worker, if he lives on a farm, automatically have no expenses in connection with employment? I am not sure. I simply put these things forward. The Government stand condemned tonight, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West on giving us the opportunity to expose them in this fraudulent exercise.

9.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): May I first thank the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for his customary courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise this debate? I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to the


points that have been raised. May I also thank the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for his kind words? We are a very flexible and adaptable lot in the Scottish Office, ready for any eventuality that may arise at any hour. I hope that this evening's events and the way in which we have tried to meet the demands made upon us bear this out. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his remarks, I am sure that the House would not want me to go into the details of the Common Market and certain attendant publicity.
I should like to deal with this question of the publicity campaign, the way in which it has been conducted and the results which it may have had. I will not be able to answer some of the detailed points raised because these are personal matters affecting individuals and I am not in possession of the full facts of each case. I will, however—and this applies particularly to the hon. Member for Motherwell, who raised this genuine problem over spectacles—be happy to investigate any matters which hon. Members bring to my attention in writing.
I pay tribute to those who administer these welfare schemes through the offices of the Department of Health and Social Security, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, local authorities, education authorities and welfare authorities. No Government has a monopoly of complex schemes and I am sure that in what hon. Members have said there was no criticism implied of the normal courtesy and efficiency and the lengths to which various welfare workers will go at national and local level in dealing with these matters.
As a constituency Member I have received the greatest courtesy, help and understanding from my own local departments and welfare offices in the Department of Health and Social Security. There are occasions when things go slightly wrong and when people feel that they have not been properly dealt with. However, in general, those who work in the welfare services at all levels do extremely good jobs in handling some very complicated cases.
I do not wish to make any party political points, but the hon. Member for Fife, West entered into his task with

customary bitterness and acrimony. I resented very much his personal remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who carries out duties at the Scottish Office in an exemplary and most able fashion. What the hon. Gentleman said tonight was undeserved in relation to the hard work of my hon. Friend. He has a deep interest and concern for those for whom he is responsible in Scotland and for his own constituents. He has worked untiringly and unsparingly over the last six years. I say no more than that. I refute every word sp id by the hon. Gentleman about my hon. Friend.
There is a deep division of approach on the welfare services. What has been said tonight has served only to underline how great are the differences and how completely different is the approach to these problems on both sides of the House. I feel that we on our side are nearer to getting the right answer, not only in regard to the country as a whole but in respect of individual sections of the community. There is no question of dividing the country, as the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to make out.

Mr. William Hamilton: Pathetic.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, from a seated position, says that it is pathetic. Time will prove which of us is right. He must remember that charges are not new. The Labour Government took them off and then put them on again, and they certainly increased the charges. There was a deep division of principle among hon. Members opposite. Those same hon. Gentlemen should not now put on their white robes and set themselves up as champions of the underprivileged. The division is not all that great. There are hon. Members opposite who realise that there must be priorities in social service spending.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: A few moments ago I understood the hon. Gentleman to be underlining the great divide between the two sides. Is he now saying that there is a firm consensus between the two sides? I think he should make clear what he is saying.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I said that there was a deep division, but I said that it was not as deep as some people might


think since, even among hon. Members opposite, there has been a full admission of the need to look at priorities. In fact, the Labour Party have never operated a completely free social service system.
When we came to Government nearly a year ago, we found that things were not in a happy state that hon. Members opposite seemed to think. We found a high rate of marginal taxation which undoubtedly was having an enormous effect on hindering the development of incentive. In the social services we found many large gaps in provision, problems affecting the chronic sick and disabled and questions of family poverty—all matters which hon. Members opposite were prepared to point out to their own Government at the time. We found certain neglected sectors in the National Health Service. We had these problems to tackle, as did the previous Government. We had to look at the question of priorities to make sure that we got our spending right, to get the best results for the country as a whole and for those sectors of the community who may be less well-off.
In many ways, in the past nine months we have done nothing on the lines of the picture which the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to paint to hurt those who are less well-off. It is true that certain charges for certain services have gone up. At the same time, what the hon. Gentleman has ignored is that we have increased to a great extent the numbers of people who qualify for free services of one kind and another. It is that side of the picture that we have to consider, and it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to paint so completely one-sided a picture as he has. One has only to look at the family income supplement, at what has been done for the disabled, at the attendance allowance, to see that we have taken a number of measures which will help certain groups in our community who were neglected under the previous Government.
I turn now to those who have been affected by some of these increases in charges, and I deal first with the higher prescription charges to which a number of hon. Gentlemen have referred. I content myself with repeating what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for the Social Services said about a fortnight ago when we debated prescription charges. In seeking out the priorities that I have mentioned, we have no intention of deterring any patient from obtaining necessary treatment. We shall certainly watch extremely closely as the new charges take effect what their impact is, and we shall look to see what changes may be necessary to avoid anyone who is deterred from getting treatment which he needs. This is very important.
What is also important is the large number of people who are already exempt from paying for prescriptions. Some 23 million people, or 42 per cent. of the population—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was saying that 42 per cent. of the population are exempted from prescription charges, in any event. That demonstrates the extent to which exemption applies already.
Before I leave the general question of the Health Service and move on to some of the other services, perhaps I might mention that this is not a simple operation for the benefit of those who will gain from the reduction in income tax at the higher income levels, as the hon. Member for Fife, West tried to suggest. The reduction in income tax is welcomed not just by those in receipt of high incomes. It is widely welcomed, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Unfortunately, he is not prepared to admit it.
The other point about these increased National Health Service charges is that by asking those who can afford it to pay for some of the services, it enables us to widen the scope of the existing services. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, we announced last October that, over the next four years, another £110 million will be spent on the National Health Service. That is over and above what was planned by the previous Government. The money will be concentrated on those sectors which need it most, the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped.

Mr. William Hamilton: The Government also intend to cut housing subsidies by between £100 million and £200 million, which means greatly increased rents for those who live in council houses.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is trying to widen the debate and, as usual, is twisting the facts. They have been debated many times in the House. The money which is at present spent on housing will be spent in a more effective way to benefit those who need it most.

Mr. Hamilton: Read the White Paper.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: However, I dislike talking about the extra resources that we intend to devote to the Health Service. It is more important to look at the situation in real terms than in money terms. The money will be concentrated on those sectors which have been neglected in recent years. We hope to see an increase in expenditure in 1971–72 of the order of 6·1 per cent. That compares with an increase in real terms in 1970–71 of 3·8 per cent. and with an average over the years of Labour Government of a little over 4 per cent.
The result of what we are doing will be that the available money will be spent more effectively to help those who need it most. It is not being dissipated on those who do not need it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
I turn to the subjects of school meals and free milk. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the reduction in the number of children in Scotland taking school meals. I assure him that we shall watch the position. We shall make a survey later this month of what is happening in schools, and reach an assessment on the basis of it. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be asking Questions about the results of the survey, and I am sure that he will press us to say what we intend doing about it. We estimate that about one-third more children in Scotland will qualify for free school meals. We expect the present number of about 96,000 to rise to 129,000. Therefore, as a result of what we are doing, a further 33,000 children in Scotland will benefit by having free school meals.

Mr. William Hamilton: They will qualify—not benefit.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We shall see what happens in the event.
It is true—as we said from the beginning when we announced our proposals for welfare milk—that those who qualified for cheap welfare milk will lose that qualification. But the important point to remember—and this is where the philosophy of the two parties is completely divided—is that instead of spreading what we can spend on this service across the board, whether or not everyone needs it, by concentrating our resources on the free milk for those who need it, we can provide it for a far greater number of children in Scotland than have benefited up to now. The average number of those who have benefited from free school milk in Scotland has been about 50,000. We expect this figure to rise to 70,000. In other words, another 20.000 people in Scotland, particularly children, will benefit from free milk. This is a step forward, not a step backward. It will certainly be a step forward for those individual children and their families.
The debate has gone fairly wide, and I have tried to answer some of the more general points. I turn to the specific question of the publicity campaign about the new benefits introduced by the Conservative Government which are available for the first time, such as pensions for the over-80s, the family income supplement, attendance allowance, more help for the disabled, and the extension of free services to those who need them. The whole question of the publicity campaign was dealt with in the debate for prescription charges to which I referred. Much of the reasoning behind it was mentioned then. In a moment I will speak about the effect of the campaign, which is its most important part, but first I should like to deal with the specific point about those who thought they could benefit because of the advertisement they saw in the Press, but then found that they could not benefit. If anybody has been misled, I am sincerely very sorry. I will examine the examples the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that he will give us these examples, and not just examples of types of welfare such as those raised by the hon. Member for Motherwell.

Mr. Lawson: I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to be able to answer precisely the more or less precise matter I put to him, but since he says that he has given


a great deal of thought to the subject matter of our debate, it is not too much to ask him to tell us about the £17.95 and the statement about free optical and dental treatment. Is there a catch in that? What are the limits? How is the scheme operated?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was the precise point which I was about to come to. There are two particular points I wish to make on this matter. The first is the entirely general point that one has to make up one's mind, in the first place, whether a publicity campaign is worth while. The hon. Member for Fife, West slightly questioned, in a rather cynical way, whether one could justify the public money spent on the campaign. He says that he doubts the value of a publicity campaign at all. I put aside the results of the campaign for the moment. Some hon. Members may not go with the hon. Gentleman on the question of whether the campaign is worth while. I do not go with him, as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I am sure that it is not the view of other hon. Members of the House.
One of the most sorry things I find very often, when dealing with constituents—not so often the ones who come to me but the ones I chance upon, for instance, when I see someone who has written to me and meet someone else by chance when I am going around the constituency—and what has always concerned me in my six years as a Member of Parliament—and I am sure this is true of the hon. Member for Fife, West and the hon. Member for Motherwell, with their far greater experience as Members of Parliament—is the number of people who are unaware of their entitlement to benefits and who fail to get the benefit they should because they do not know about it. Therefore, any publicity which we can give, by shouting about our schemes on the public and political platform and by telling our friends how good they are, is unsatisfactory unless we take the message to those who really need to know what the schemes are. If we do not do that we are failing. To that extent, a publicity campaign is absolutely necessary.
This leads on to the question whether the kind of publicity campaign that we

have will make the greatest impact. It is true that if we were to answer the needs of every person who has a problem who could qualify for help under the different schemes, we should be producing sheaf upon sheaf of leaflets which could never be included in a Press or television campaign. After all, it is in the Press that we have carried out most of this campaign. For example, we have distributed 30 million leaflets in the course of the campaign. On television we have made 140 showings of a 30-second film. We want to have the impact to make those who are entitled to help aware of it, so that they can inquire and obtain details. If we give all the details in something which is meant to have an impact, we shall lose the impact to make our publicity a success. It is inevitable that we simply cannot, in physical terms, put in all the details needed for every individual to assess whether he is entitled or not. That is the first point.
The advertisement—I have a print of it here—is couched in fairly general terms. It is couched in average terms, as I call them, which we believe will arouse the interest and bring forward the inquiries to help us to meet the needs of those who are entitled to benefit. If, at the same time, it brings forward those who are ultimately disappointed, I would say that I am sorry about it. But we will judge this by the kind of response we have had to the campaign and the help that has arisen from it.
My second point is about the question of it being misleading. In all these advertisements—and this relates to the table in particular, and to the questions—although the hon. Member for Fife, West made a certain amount of fun of this, it is clearly stated in heavy type that the table is "a guide only." In other words, there is no question of trying to mislead or of this being political propaganda. The hon. Gentleman is drunk with his speeches on the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill in Committee morning after morning and is carried away by his enthusiasm for his exaggeration. His enthusiasm for exaggeration did not fail him tonight.
Anybody reading the table would be bound to read the cautionary note above. The table states that a married couple with an income of £17·95 may qualify for free


optical or dental treatment but there is this cautionary note
Examples of income at which you may qualify are given below. They can only be a very general guide because the limits are affected by the age of children, and such variables as rents, rates and expenses connected with work. The incomes shown are gross earnings and include, where payable, family allowances.
Without knowing the personal circumstances of the constituent of the hon. Member for Motherwell, this explains why a married couple with an income of £17·95 might not necessarily qualify. It comes under the qualification of gross earnings and other variables. I hope that the advertisement would have aroused in the person concerned sufficient interest for him to find out just what he would qualify for.

Mr. Lawson: The difference is so great. This old couple had an income more than £5 less than the gross figure stated but they did not qualify. This means either that the Government are very much less generous than they claim or that there is something wrong.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is why I should like to know the details of the case. I have spoken in terms of averages. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has hit on an extreme from an average. An average is always made up of a very wide wide range. If the advertisement is misleading, I should be interested to know and to take cognisance of it in any future advertising campaign. I accept that there seems to be wide discrepancy there.
Apart from the advertising campaign in the Press and on television, leaflets have been distributed. A little red book entitled, "Family Benefits. Your Right to Claim them" has been made widely available. This leaflet describes in much more detail all the different welfare services which are available. Most people on reading the leaflet would be able to get a clear picture of whether they would qualify. In fairness, where questions of detail are involved it is carefully qualified so that people should not be misled.
In addition, there has been a small edition of the red book which summarises what was in the Press. There is a leaflet entitled, "Free Prescriptions or Refund of Charges on Grounds of Income".

There has been a leaflet entitled "Dental and Optical Charges: How to claim exemption or help". There is a leaflet entitled, "Your right to free welfare milk and foods". We have conducted an advertising campaign of unprecedented scale in an attempt to bring to the notice of those in need how they can qualify and claim their entitlement.
I turn to the impact of this campaign. I should be completely with the hon. Member for Fife, West, if we had issued a form of publicity campaign which showed only the bones of what there was and which misled people, but that is not the case. I should be with the hon. Gentleman if this were a very expensive campaign—as it is; it is not cheap to conduct such a campaign—and if it were not bringing results. In those circumstances, I should question it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett) asked a Question of the Secretary of State for Social Services about the results on 11th May in column 70 of HANSARD. I have some more details since then.
The campaign took place about the end of March and the beginning of April. On milk and welfare food, the average weekly claims before 1st April were 32. The weekly average for the first three weeks of April was 6,449, the total for the week ending 27th April was 26,350 and for the week ending 4th May 24,157 —a cumulative total of 69,854.
The average weekly rate for prescriptions before 1st April was 346, the average for the first three weeks of April was 1,800, for the fourth week 12.793, for the week ending 4th May, 15,742—a cumulative total of 33,935—

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot take it, but I want to give these figures.
On dental services, the weekly average before 1st April was 1,024. the average for the first three weeks was 1,463, the fourth week it was 5,438, and for the week ending 4th May it was 5,992—a total since 1st April of 15,719. I appreciate that claims merely measure interest aroused.
On optical services, the weekly average of claims before 1st April was 1,572, the average for the first three weeks of April was 2,004, the total for the week


ending 27th April was 10,099 and for the week ending 4th May 12,002—a total of 28,013.
I ask the House to judge whether this campaign has been a success in terms of interest aroused. Every penny invested has been justified and in percentage terms the increase has been astronomical.

Mr. William Hamilton: Are these Scottish figures or statistics applying to the United Kingdom as a whole? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is pointless for him to give the number of applications unless we are told the number of those which were successful and those which were rejected?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is what I was about to do. I am always frank with the House.

Mr. Hamilton: I would not say that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am always straight and honest in dealing with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do not like to give only one side of the picture, as the hon. Gentleman did. I intend to paint the whole picture on this occasion so that, when people read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate, they will be able to judge for themselves.
These figures cover the whole country. I do not have specific Scottish figures. I will make inquiries to see whether they can be made available. The Government react quickly, though we cannot react in a few hours in such a way as to provide every possible statistic the hon. Gentleman might required. Considering the short notice that he gave us of raising this subject on the Adjournment, he must be quite surprised at the number of statistics he is getting, and I am not finished yet.
I come to the meat of this campaign and, as the hon. Gentleman said, both sides of the picture are necessary if the statistics are not to be misleading. As he says, what matters is the number of awards. One cannot assess whether they result directly from individual inquiries but one can make a fair comparison by taking the average number of weekly awards before 1st April and comparing them with the average number since that date. I will deal with the four services which I mentioned previously.
First, milk and welfare foods. The average before 1st April was 29 a week. For the first three weeks of April, the average was 2,291. In the fourth week of April, the figure was 7,621. In the week ending 4th May, the figure had risen to 10,400, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 24,894.
Now prescriptions. The average weekly number of awards was 253 prior to 1st April. For the first three weeks of April, the figure was 935. In the fourth week, it was 3,335. For the week ending 4th May, it had risen to 5,643, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 11,783.
Let us look at the dental services. The weekly average before 1st April was 438. This rose in the first three weeks of April to an average of 642. In the week ending 27th April, it was 673. In the week ending 4th May, the figure had risen to 1,410, giving a cumulative total of 4,009 since 1st April.
Let us consider the awards made in respect of optical services. The weekly average before 1st April was 726. The average of the first three weeks of April was 972. For the week ending 27th April, it was 1,565. For the week ending 4th May, it had risen to 2,854, giving a cumulative total since 1st April of 7,335.

Mr. Lawson: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will not give way.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have given way generously. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity in which to speak.

Mr. Lawson: I thought the hon. Gentleman said he was always fair.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These figures demonstrate beyond peradventure—

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman should give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These figures demonstrate how wrong hon. Gentlemen opposite are when they say—

Mr. Lawson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he must not keep intervening from a seated position.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. We have been very orderly tonight. This has been a good-humoured debate.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and I know each other very well. He will appreciate that hon. Members must respect what the Chair says.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House Without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.